NAMING THE PROBLEM What It Will Take to Counter Extremism and Engage Americans in the Fight against Global Warming Theda Skocpol Harvard University January 2013 Prepared for the Symposium on THE POLITICS OF AMERICA’S FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING Co-sponsored by the Columbia School of Journalism and the Scholars Strategy Network February 14, 2013, 4:15-6:15 pm Tsai Auditorium, Harvard University
145
Embed
Theda Skocpol report - Grist · NAMING THE PROBLEM What It Will Take to Counter Extremism and Engage Americans in the Fight against Global Warming Theda Skocpol Harvard University
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
NAMING THE PROBLEM
What It Will Take to Counter Extremism and
Engage Americans in the Fight against Global Warming
Theda Skocpol
Harvard University
January 2013
Prepared for the Symposium on
THE POLITICS OF AMERICA’S FIGHT
AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING
Co-sponsored by the
Columbia School of Journalism and the Scholars Strategy Network
February 14, 2013, 4:15-6:15 pm
Tsai Auditorium, Harvard University
ii
CONTENTS
Making Sense of the Cap and Trade Failure
Beyond Easy Answers
Did the Economic Downturn Do It?
Did Obama Fail to Lead?
An Anatomy of Two Reform Campaigns
A Regulated Market Approach to Health Reform
Harnessing Market Forces to Mitigate Global Warming
New Investments in Coalition-Building and Political Capabilities
HCAN on the Left Edge of the Possible
Climate Reformers Invest in Insider Bargains and Media Ads
Outflanked by Extremists
The Roots of GOP Opposition
Climate Change Denial
The Pivotal Battle for Public Opinion in 2006 and 2007
The Tea Party Seals the Deal
iii
What Can Be Learned?
Environmentalists Diagnose the Causes of Death
Where Should Philanthropic Money Go?
The Politics Next Time
Yearning for an Easy Way
New Kinds of Insider Deals?
Are Market Forces Enough?
What Kind of Politics?
Using Policy Goals to Build a Broader Coalition
The Challenge Named
1
“I can’t work on a problem if I cannot name it.” The complaint was registered
gently, almost as a musing after-thought at the end of a June 2012 interview I conducted
by telephone with one of the nation’s prominent environmental leaders.
My interlocutor had played a major role in efforts to get Congress to pass “cap
and trade” legislation during 2009 and 2010. Hefty DC players had worked together in
the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (otherwise known as USCAP), a coalition of
business chieftains and leaders of big environmental organizations that was publicly
launched in 2007 to push legislation to place a cap on carbon emissions and create an
open market for energy producers to trade allowances under the cap. Once legislated,
caps were meant to be slowly ratcheted down in future decades, so U.S. companies and
citizens would have an incentive to use less carbon-based energy and invest in green
technologies. This “cap and trade” approach was seen by supporters as a quintessentially
market-oriented way to nudge the vast U.S. economy through a gradual transition to
reliance on sources of energy that would do less damage to the climate. The model
originated with economists looking to harness market forces and found some favor with
major corporations and Republicans, so it seemed to be a good bet for building bipartisan
coalitions in Congress.1 Votes from some Republicans would be essential, because votes
for carbon caps would be hard to find among Democrats representing states with strong
coal or oil sectors or states heavily reliant on electricity generated in coal-fired plants.
To many savvy players, prospects for a legislative push for cap and trade looked
excellent during and right after the presidential campaign of 2008. Versions of this
approach were touted not just by the Democratic nominee and eventual victor Barack
2
Obama, but also by the 2008 Republican standard-bearer, John McCain – who was one of
the favorite GOPers among big environmentalists, because he had repeatedly co-
sponsored carbon-control bills. Environmentalists who favored cap and trade presumed
that John McCain would be on their side – it was just a question of when they could make
it possible for him to play a pivotal role in forging a bipartisan deal in the Senate. With
Democratic president Barack Obama moving into the White House in early 2009 and
Democratic House and Senate leaders pledged to act on climate legislation, the time
looked ripe to move full speed ahead. On January 15, 2009, USCAP leaders issued a
meticulously negotiated blueprint for a new cap and trade system and geared up for non-
stop lobbying to get legislation through Congress.2 Visions danced in their heads of a
celebratory White House signing ceremony nicely timed to tee up U.S. leadership in the
next international climate confab scheduled for December 2009 in Copenhagen.
Following months of intricate bargaining, USCAP forces scored an initial, hard-
fought success when, on June 29, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the
Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security” bill by a vote of 219 to 212.
Supporters were elated, but they got a big shock almost at once as oppositional lobbying
and media campaigns went into overdrive and fierce grassroots Tea Party protests broke
out. During the summer Congressional recess, telegenic older white protestors carrying
homemade signs appeared at normally sleepy “town hall” sessions to harangue
Congressional Democrats who supported health reform as well as the Waxman-Markey
bill. Protests were bolstered by generously funded advertising campaigns targeted on
Senators who would be asked to decide about cap and trade bills in the fall. In hasty
response, cap and trade supporters threw together a national “war room” and public
3
relations campaign. They plowed ahead toward what they hoped would be a bipartisan
deal in the Senate.
But one coalitional effort after another fell apart in late 2009 and early 2010, as
putative Senate compromises came and went. In July 2010, Senate Leader Harry Reid
finally pulled the plug when it became clear that no variant of cap and trade or any other
kind of energy legislation had any prospect of coming close to the 60 votes needed to
clear his chamber’s filibuster bar. During this pivotal year, Republicans, including long-
time supposed friends of the environmental movement like John McCain, simply melted
away; and in the end GOP Senators unanimously refused to support of any variant of cap
and trade.3 In public opinion polls, Americans registered increased wariness about
government action on carbon caps – with public worries stoked by opponents claiming
that new taxes and regulations would cost jobs, reduce family incomes, and stifle
businesses struggling to recover from the Great Recession.
Prospects for action on climate change soon deteriorated further. In the
November 2010 mid-term elections Congressional Democrats sustained massive
setbacks, and very conservative Republicans were in many instances replaced by right-
wing extremists. The 112th House that took office in January 2011 was one of the most
right-wing in U.S. history, and it included dozens of Tea Party backed Republicans who
would not bargain about any major Democratic legislative priority, certainly not carbon
controls or green energy legislation.4 Republican hardliners in and beyond Congress set
out on a crusade to strip the federal Environmental Protection Agency of its judicially
affirmed powers to regulate greenhouse gases, and even to take away longstanding EPA
powers in other areas of environmental protection. The 112th Senate remained in
4
Democratic hands by a small margin, but also saw an infusion of hard-right Republicans
who would firmly oppose legislation and regulatory efforts to deal with global warming.
The hardening opposition of the Republican Party on environmental issues
became unmistakable during 2011 and 2012, as the field of contenders for the GOP
presidential nomination emerged and winnowed down to the last man standing – Mitt
Romney, former governor of Massachusetts. Once a technocratic moderate of the sort
courted by professional environmental organizations, Romney had signaled openness to
cap and trade approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But he turned against
cap and trade during the 2008 GOP presidential primaries, and to win the GOP
nomination in 2012, he began questioning whether human activities contribute to global
warming.5 Romney eagerly signed on to strong anti-regulatory and anti-tax agendas
pushed from the right of his party; and in August 2012 he named as his running mate
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, a darling of the Tea Party whose career has been
nurtured by American for Prosperity.6 This is an anti-tax and anti-regulatory advocacy
group funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, who are leading opponents of carbon
control measures.7
To be sure, Romney lost the November 2012 contest to Obama, although climate
change was not addressed by either candidate on the campaign trail. The Democrats made
gains in the Senate for 2013 and 2014, adding more pro-environmental legislators into the
mix. But very conservative House Republicans were also overwhelmingly re-elected, and
their party retains the ability to stymie new initiatives.
The set-backs of 2010 and afterwards left DC-focused environmental
organizations puzzled about how to regain the legislative initiative or re-start a robust
5
national conversation about global warming. Looking back at the fizzle in 2010,
postmortems were penned and conferences convened to figure out what went wrong and
what should happen next. Diagnoses and prescriptions have been all over the map, as we
will see in the concluding section of this report. Meanwhile, political consultants and
public relations wordsmiths urged environmentalists to redouble euphemistic locutions
already deployed during the cap and trade battle – to talk about “green jobs,” “threats to
public health,” and the need to “reduce dependence on foreign oil to bolster national
defense,” anything but the threat of global warming and catastrophic climate upheavals.8
Such advice tailed off during the record heat-waves of the summer of 2012; and after
Hurricane Sandy devastated the East Coast shortly before the November elections, the
New York media openly connected global warming to the unusual late autumn mega-
storm. Some environmentalists declared that politicians are now bound to take up the
issue.
This almost certainly overstates the likelihood of sustained official attention.
After his decisive re-election, President Obama may speak now and then about the threat
of global warming. But official Washington remains mired in partisan standoffs over
fiscal choices, and big fights loom over immigration, gun control, and a host of other
issues. Whatever environmentalists may hope, the Obama White House and
Congressional Democrats are unlikely to make global warming a top issue in 2013 or
2014; and there is no indication that pragmatic political consultants will soon advise most
politicians in office or running for office to make this issue a top priority.
For America’s professional environmentalists it is profoundly disorienting to pull
punches linguistically or in terms of policy recommendations. These are highly educated
6
people long invested in a logical, rational-minded approach to governance. They have
built organizations staffed by thousands of scientists, lawyers, and lobbyists devoted to
spreading scientifically backed messages to policymakers who are presumed to want to
work out rational plans to solve problems. Global warming is, in their eyes, an overriding
crisis. “We have assumed,” explained the leader I quoted at the start of this report, “that if
you just realized the truths I know, you would agree” that the United States must take
immediate strong actions to curb carbon emissions and mitigate global warming.
Obviously, it is deflating to move from such confidence to mincing words in the face of
highly partisan attacks, popular consternation, and official evasions.
Yet the stark truth is that severe weather events alone will not cause global
warming to pop to the top of the national agenda – let alone revive and strengthen the
push for carbon capping legislation that surely must be one part of America’s (and the
world’s) fight against global warming. For that undertaking to reemerge and triumph,
fresh strategies will be needed, based on new understandings of political obstacles and
opportunities.
MAKING SENSE OF THE CAP AND TRADE FAILURE
What holds true for talking about climate change also applies to dissecting a
pivotal episode of failed policy advocacy and clarifying the alternatives for actors who
want to resume the quest for carbon caps. The political problem must be clearly
described. No one can illuminate why the 2009-10 cap and trade shortfall happened – or
7
properly weigh the collateral damage and lessons – without unflinchingly probing and
naming the true obstacles. As a citizen, I am sympathetic to environmentalism in its twin
guises of professional advocacy and grassroots activism. Yet my job in this report is to
take a cold-blooded look, to use my skills as an empirical, big-picture political scientist to
analyze the cap and trade battle against the backdrop of longer-term institutional and
political changes in the United States. If environmental politics in America was ever a
matter of working out shared bipartisan solutions to expert-assessed problems, it is now
far from that – but in what ways and why? And what is to be done? My report ponders
these matters.
In the course of my research, I have conducted some interviews with key actors
and pulled together data of my own along with findings from press coverage and other
scholars. I have been fortunate to consult with journalists Petra Bartosiewicz and Marissa
Miley, who have done a superb job of interviewing most participants in the immediate
battles and describing and assessing what happened in 2009 and 2010.9 Similarly helpful
are the findings in “Cold Front: How the Recession Stalled Obama’s Clean Energy
Agenda,” a careful dissection of presidential and Congressional developments prepared
by MIT political scientist Judith Layzer for Reaching for a New Deal: Ambitious
Governance, Economic Meltdown, and Polarized Politics in Obama’s First Two Years.
This Russell Sage Foundation book reported on a project coordinated by me and
Lawrence Jacobs to track and assess the policy changes attempted in seven different
spheres during the first two years of the Obama presidency.10 The aim in that project is
similar to my goal here: dissect the policy shifts that were attempted, see what succeeded
and failed, and explain the causes and political consequences.
8
I have also relied heavily on The Climate War, an interview-based account of the
cap and trade effort that was published in mid-2010 by Eric Pooley, who was at that time
a journalist and has since become a Senior Vice President at the Environmental Defense
Fund.11 Pooley’s well written and meticulously researched book is not a value-free
account. As signaled by his subtitle invoking “the Fight to Save the Earth,” Pooley saw
the principal USCAP players as earth-striding heroes. Yet Pooley’s sympathy allowed
him incomparable access. He was able to interview the key USCAP leaders in real time
during the unfolding struggle for cap and trade, and he put his book to bed before the
final death throes in 2010. That is precisely why his material has been so helpful, freeing
me from sole reliance on after-the-fact interviews. Pooley’s account explains what key
USCAP actors thought they were doing and might accomplish before they knew the
effort would fall short in Congress. From The Climate War, we can track the strategies
and maneuvers of the coaches and players into the fourth quarter – until just before it was
clear that the game was lost, and before the Monday morning quarterbacks took to the
airways with their rationalizations and I-told-you-so’s
My analysis is grounded in empirical details, but is also examines the long term
and the big picture. I start with a discussion of what should – and should not – puzzle us
about the 2009-10 episode, and move from there to show why this was not just any
routine policy shortfall. To help clarify similarities and differences in ideas, resources,
and political strategies, I make comparisons between the years-long battle for cap and
trade and the parallel campaign for comprehensive health reform legislation.12 Amid just
as many Perils-of-Pauline twists and turns as any climate bill ever faced, the health
reform effort ultimately succeeded in getting legislation through both houses of Congress
9
and signed into law by President Obama. Success for health care reformers happened
even as the cap and trade effort faltered and backfired, much as the earlier 1993-94 health
reform effort had done. The two policy areas are of course different in many key respects,
which I will not downplay, but a comparison of the strategies and organizational
capacities of health reformers and cap and trade advocates is instructive.
In spelling out political obstacles to cap and trade, I look more closely than other
analysts at the role since 1990 of the rightward-lunging Republican Party, which was
pivotal in the collapse of bipartisan negotiations and the growing backlash against carbon
caps. For this part of the analysis, I am able to draw on not only on a wide variety of
surveys, journalistic pieces, and political science studies, but also on research I did with
my co-author Vanessa Williamson for our book The Tea Party and the Remaking of
Republican Conservatism.13 We interviewed grassroots Tea Party activists, tallied the
incidence and agendas of some 900 local groups, visited and observed local meetings,
and probed the nationwide activities of wealthy, ideologically extreme funding and
advocacy groups that sought to use grassroots conservative activism to push the
Republican Party far to the right and prevent GOP officeholders from compromising with
Democrats. Our research shows that opposition to environmentalism and governmental
action to redress global warming have been and continue to be top concerns for
grassroots Tea Partiers and elite ultra-conservatives alike.
My report concludes that the cap and trade failure both expressed and deepened
power imbalances tilting against supporters of carbon emissions limits for the United
States. The USCAP campaign was designed and conducted in an insider-grand-
bargaining political style that, unbeknownst to its sponsors, was unlikely to succeed given
10
fast-changing realities in U.S. partisan politics and governing institutions. What is more,
this partially successful yet ultimately abortive attempt did much to provoke and mobilize
fierce enemies and enhance their populist capacities and political clout for future battles.
As I will spell out, the capacity of opponents to stymie carbon-capping legislation does
not depend on general popularity or appeals to middle-of-the-road public opinion. It
depends, instead, on leverage within the Republican Party, which in turn can use
institutional levers in U.S. government to stymie or undermine governmental measures to
fight global warming.
The failure of the 2009-10 policy push for cap and trade legislation was, in one
respect, quite unsurprising – attributable (in political science 101 terms) to Senate rules
setting an insurmountable 60-vote bar in combination with intractable regional divisions
of interest within the Democratic Party. Even so, the abortive push for cap and trade
legislation is an interesting failure to probe, because this was not a routine shortfall and
may not amount to just a temporary setback. The expiration of cap and trade bargaining
in the 111th Senate marked a watershed not an interruption, because the ground has
shifted beneath the feet of those who urgently want to take economic steps to mitigate
human-spurred climate change. We can be sure their efforts will resume. But reformers
will probably not be able just to pick up where the earlier cap and trade effort left off,
trying to get the job done with insider grand bargains.
Environmentalists can no longer presume that most officials in Washington DC or
in many non-coastal state capitols are looking for expert solutions to agreed-upon
problems. Many politicians and officeholders now have powerful ideological and career-
related reasons to shun environmentalists and other elites, including business people,
11
allied with them. Ever since global warming became prominent on the environmental
agenda, an all-out political fight has been underway, and reformers do themselves no
favor by refusing to clearly understand the scope of the battle or the degree to which
politicians, including almost all Republicans now in office, have been recruited into the
opposition. Reformers of all sorts who want to change energy production and use in the
United States will have to publicly dramatize the challenges and offer understandable
solutions that do not appear inimical to the everyday values and economic concerns of
ordinary American families struggling in an era of stagnating incomes and contracting
opportunities. Climate change warriors will have to look beyond elite maneuvers and find
ways to address the values and interests of tens of millions of U.S. citizens. To counter
fierce political opposition, reformers will have to build organizational networks across
the country, and they will need to orchestrate sustained political efforts that stretch far
beyond friendly Congressional offices, comfy board rooms, and posh retreats.
Compromises with amenable business interests will still be necessary. But insider
politics cannot carry the day on its own, apart from a broader movement pressing
politicians for change.
BEYOND EASY ANSWERS
Anyone who interviews DC environmentalists will repeatedly hear two
explanations for the failure of the 2009-10 push for cap and trade legislation. One is a
kind of retrospective fatalism – people now realize, they say, that the financial crisis of
12
2008 and ensuing deep economic downturn made it impossible to pass this kind of
legislation. Stated more often and with much more feeling, the other rationale amounts to
griping about President Obama: Their cause could have prevailed, say many cap and
trade supporters, “if only” the President had made it his top reform priority rather than
getting bogged down in a protracted and polarizing push for comprehensive health reform
– or “if only” the White House had “exercised leadership” in the penultimate Senate
struggles for cap and trade.14 It will not escape most readers that these arguments are
contradictory; one implies that proponents of carbon-capping legislation should not have
launched their big 2009 legislative effort at all, while the other suggests that all the ducks
were pretty much in a row “if only” President Obama had gone to bat for climate-change
legislation as his top priority reform.
Did the Economic Downturn Do It?
We can safely question the adequacy of either argument, however, starting with
the idea that the economic downturn automatically ruled out cap and trade. The
deteriorating economy in late 2008 and 2009 certainly did prompt most Americans to
place economic recovery and job-creation at the top of their to-do list for Washington
DC. Environmental concerns – and other once-important public concerns, too, like
worries about health care – receded as issue priorities when the economy took a plunge.15
In response to public concerns, the fledgling Obama administration and Congressional
leaders acted quickly to launch what they thought would be an adequate stimulus by
passing the massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009. A year
13
later it became clear they had not done nearly enough; but at the time, they thought they
were acting first on the public’s top priority. Most officials in the White House and
Democratic offices on Capitol Hill believed they had done enough, or at least all that was
politically feasible to do.
President Obama and the new Democratic-controlled Congress were hardly likely
to stop legislating after the Recovery Act was in the books, however. Obama made it
clear from his first weeks in office that his administration’s efforts to rescue and jump
start the economy would not keep him from pursuing the long-term reforms he promised
when he ran for office. In his first budget message, Obama listed climate-change and
energy legislation along with health reform and educational improvements as his top
reform priorities; and he called for a 38% increase in funding for the Environmental
Protection Agency, to support new efforts at greenhouse gas regulation.16 Despite the
deep and persistent economic downturn, Obama and the Democratic-led 111th Congress
succeeded in getting cap and trade legislation through the House; and after fifteen months
of effort they managed to pass through both the House and Senate the Affordable Care
and Patient Protection Act of 2010 – which was, like cap and trade, a massive, complex
legislative effort to remake regulations, taxes, and expenditures affecting the entire U.S.
economy, all citizens, and powerful interest groups.
During 2009, both proponents of health reform and supporters of carbon caps
adjusted their appeals to the public and key stakeholder groups in response to the
economic downturn. Health reformers stressed that families had greater need for assured
and affordable insurance when jobs might be lost; and they dangled revenues and profits
in front of health providers, insurance companies, and medical-sector manufacturers.
14
Analogous efforts were made by cap and trade proponents. USCAP bargaining was all
about buffering and padding profits for key industrial sectors that would have to grapple
with higher carbon-energy prices– and such efforts carried over into Congressional
legislative sausage-making, with due attention to the cost and profit worries of industries
experiencing the economic downturn. At the public level, moreover, President Obama
framed his support for comprehensive legislation as a “green jobs” initiative and a path
toward U.S. energy independence, as did reformers when they attempted to explain cap
and trade legislation to the larger public under the slogan “Better Jobs, Less Pollution,
and More Security.”17
Attempts to tailor bargains and public appeals to fit the realities of a down
economy were not decisive in either the health or environmental battle. Surveys during
2009 and 2010 showed the public growing increasingly wary of omnibus legislation in
both policy arenas. And of course powerful interest groups went to war against omnibus
legislation in both cases. Good economic times might have been a better time to pursue
both comprehensive health reform and carbon caps – though let’s not kid ourselves into
thinking that the political opposition would ever be less than fierce. The key point is that
the depressed economy did not prevent either effort from moving forward in 2009, or
determine that health legislation squeaked through in March 2010 even as cap and trade
was staggering to its death in the endless desert of the U.S. Senate. The dynamics of
mobilization, counter-mobilization, and political coalition building mattered much more.
15
Did Obama Fail to Lead?
This brings us to what many cap and traders really believe – that they could have
succeeded despite the economic downturn if only the President had backed their horse
instead of health reform. For a political scientist like myself who has interviewed key
actors in both the Affordable Care drama and the cap and trade episode, it is surreal to
listen to “if only” comments about President Obama and his White House advisors. I
heard exactly the same gripes from both health reform proponents and cap and trade
supporters – phrased in almost the same words and aggrieved tone of voice! Obama was
too passive. The President did not exercise “real leadership,” but laid back and left
Congressional committees and reform advocates to muddle through. “If only” he had
boldly outlined what he wanted and knocked Congressional heads together, things would
have moved faster – and whatever position the speaker supported (in either policy drama)
would surely have carried the day and/or happened a lot faster. In the health care
instance, such complaints certainly came from those pushing to include the “public
option” in Affordable Care; yet similar gripes came from others, too, including the
ultimate winners, who during the fifteen month battle complained about the length and
uncertainty of the legislative process. In the cap and trade case, complaints about the
President’s failed leadership come not only from the Monday morning quarterbacks of
the losing team, but also from those commenting at the time at particular tough junctures
in the House and Senate deliberations. In a modern variant of blaming the King’s
advisors rather than the King himself, opprobrium is sometimes assigned to White House
aides – especially to Obama’s famously ornery and foul-mouthed chief of staff, Rahm
16
Emmanuel, who had verbal run-ins with both health and environmental advocates. He
hurled insults at progressive health reform advocates who wanted to run ads opposing
Democrats foot-dragging on health reform legislation.18 And he rudely rebuffed pressures
from cap and trade proponents for Obama to get more involved in their cause, exhorting
them (as one key player recalls) “to get me some Republicans.”19
But whether we finger Obama or his aides, “failure of leadership” was not really
the issue, because the Obama administration was working from a well-considered
strategic playbook that makes good presidential sense. The White House team would not
let the President fully engage until and unless sufficient House or Senate majorities were
almost in place, because it was thought to be politically dangerous – and not likely to
help – to get Obama directly involved in the messy, shifting horse-trading over taxes,
regulations, and side-payments that necessarily played out over many months while
Congressional committees tried to assemble the majorities necessary for comprehensive
health reform or cap and trade. The White House saw its role as facilitating consultations
and quiet bargains – for which proud, ambitious Congressional kingpins would take
public credit, should maneuvers succeed. In both legislative dramas, the Obama White
House staged public speeches, forums, and hand-holding sessions in the Oval Office to
try keep things moving along. Above all, when votes were close, the White House
deployed the President and his top aides to help round up the final votes. The President
and his top aides did this first and most visibly for the Waxman-Markey House American
Clean Energy and Security Act. “It would not have passed without the White House,” an
aide to Congressman Markey acknowledged to Eric Pooley.20
17
18
19
Some presume that Obama and the Democrats of the 111th Congress could
manage only one “heavy lift” and assert that cap and trade necessarily suffered in those
intervals when health reform moved forward. For short periods in particular House or
Senate committees, that might have been true, but looking at the entire fifteen month
period from early 2009 through the spring of 2010, this zero-sum presumption just does
not make sense. A lot of presidential and Congressional action happened on both cap and
trade and comprehensive health reform. As the timelines displayed in Charts 1a and 1b
show, cap and trade actually moved more quickly in 2009; and there were moments of
extreme peril for health reform as well as cap and trade. The August 2009 Tea Party
protests at Democratic Congressional town halls threatened both legislative efforts. And
no body-blow that might have stalled and killed legislative momentum was greater in the
cap and trade saga than the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in January 2010
Massachusetts Senate special election. Yet somehow the political momentum resumed in
the health reform case, and not because Obama boldly took the lead.21 He had to be
pushed into the perilous health reform end game by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.
In the final accounting, the President was duly and fully engaged in rounding up cap and
trade votes in the House months before he engaged in similar efforts for health reform in
either the House or Senate. When Obama did fully commit during both legislative efforts,
moreover, he did so to round up the last necessary votes – mostly from Democrats.
Partisan dynamics were different in these two efforts. In the House of
Representatives, all but one of the votes for health reform came from Democrats, and in
the squeaker Senate vote about health reform held on Christmas Eve in 2009, the parties
divided cleanly, with 58 Democrats and two Independents who caucused with Democrats
20
in favor and all 40 Republicans opposed. In the cap and trade instance, however, when
Waxman-Markey finally cleared the House, eight Republicans voted for it – just enough
to allow the legislation to pass while 44 Democrats voted against the measure. In both
the House and Senate, a bloc of Democrats from oil and coal states and states dependent
on coal-fired electricity generation were always going to vote against cap and trade –
everyone knew that going into the effort. Consequently, some Republicans had to support
bipartisan legislation for cap and trade (or any related legislation) to prevail.
To hold a “failure of leadership” by Obama responsible for the ultimate shortfall
for cap and trade, we would have to imagine that, in the spring of 2010, the President
could have done something better or different than the USCAP leaders or Senate
bargainers to satisfy Rahm Emmanuel’s realistic demand to “get me some Republicans.”
We have to picture Barack Obama being more persuasive with leading Republicans than,
say, Environmental Defense Fund honcho Fred Krupp, who had successfully cajoled
votes out of GOP Senators in the past. I do not find that plausible. Presidential arm-
twisting and sweet-talking were not the issue. Developments in the two parties, especially
among Republicans, were pivotal.
A closer look at the organizational underpinnings of two ambitious efforts – to
pass carbon caps to deal with climate change, and to reform costs and coverage in the
U.S. health system – can help clarify why comprehensive health reform legislation could
ultimately ride through, while cap and trade was undone by a suddenly widening political
crevasse – not just between Democrats and Republicans, but within the Republican party
itself, between extreme right-wingers and formerly compromise-minded conservatives.
21
AN ANATOMY OF TWO REFORM CAMPAIGNS
When one of America’s two major political parties moves toward decisive, across
the board victories in pivotal elections, supporters of policy causes that have been
dismissed or sidelined in the previous regime start preparing to seize the new moment.
By 2005 and 2006, it was pretty clear to America’s political class that Republicans were
faltering and Democrats were on the rise. The sitting GOP President was in his second
term and could not run again; his party was bogged down in an increasingly unpopular
war and facing fiscal and economic difficulties and a bevy of scandals. Policy
entrepreneurs started gearing up to take advantage of new political openings, including
those who wanted the United States to address climate change and those who believed it
was, again, time to attempt comprehensive health reform (defined as a simultaneous
effort to control sharply rising costs and extend insurance coverage to growing ranks of
the uninsured). Preparations in both camps intensified following 2004 and especially after
the Democrats made substantial Congressional gains in 2006.
As both health reformers and global warming warriors geared up, there was a key
difference. One set of reformers looked to learn from past failure, while the other wanted
to extend partial successes. Looking back at the “Health Security” debacle of 1993-94,
would-be health reformers concentrated on learning from mistakes made when
Democrats last controlled both the White House and both houses of Congress.22 They set
out to do better at policy specification, expert preparations, and political coalition-
building. Meanwhile, climate change reformers prepared to extend and recapitulate what
22
they saw as earlier accomplishments – with the acid rain amendments to the Clean Air
Act of 1990 serving as their lode-star. Climate-action reformers hoped to repeat methods
used to ensure bipartisan support for that watershed accomplishment; and they also
planned to build upon bipartisan Senate coalitions that had supported legislation for an
economy-wide cap and trade system in 2003, 2005, and 2008. Health reformers, in short,
were looking to correct for failures they (and their like-minded predecessors) had made in
a past political juncture analogous to the one they might soon face, whereas climate
reformers eagerly anticipated building upon an earlier triumph during another political
opening with a sympathetic president and woo-able legislators in both parties.
In retrospect, it looks as if health reformers anticipated the political nature of the
opening during 2009 and 2010 correctly, while those supporting action on climate change
did not. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves or commit the sin of anachronistic
assessment. As of the time Barack Obama took office, not to mention during the
transition period between 2006 and 2008, nothing looked irrational about either the learn-
from-past-mistakes approach favored by the health reformers or the let’s-do-it-again-but-
better variant of anticipatory strategizing followed by the cap and trade proponents. It
made sense that Democrats would primarily carry the ball on comprehensive health
reform, which had been a holy grail for their party for decades; and it also made sense
that bipartisan coalitions would have to play a stronger role in delivering Congressional
votes for climate-change legislation. The ultimate presidential victor, Barack Obama,
was clearly prepared to practice both partisanship and bipartisanship. Throughout his
quest for the presidency, Obama stressed that he would pursue key Democratic Party
priorities and at the same time look to encourage compromises to tackle fundamental
23
national challenges. As he took the oath of office after an extraordinary electoral victory
and at a time of national economic crisis, the new president did not expect to face zero-
sum choices between partisan mobilization and cooperation across the aisle. He thought
he could bring DC players together, at least to some degree, to address America’s biggest
problems.
Both health reform and legislative action on carbon caps would require a push
from Democratic leaders in the Obama White House and the 111th Congress, coupled
with a modicum of support and cooperation from some Congressional Republicans.
Anticipating that, health reformers and climate-action reformers girded for their efforts
well in advance – by preparing policy proposals, teeing up expertise, and organizing new
political coalitions. As we are about to see, intellectual preparations in both policy areas
embodied a shared convergence on market regulations intended to nudge businesses
rather than displace them. But political coalition-building by health reformers and
carbon-cap supporters went down different paths. In climate reform, the biggest
investment was in stakeholder bargaining through USCAP. In health reform, many
actors prepped in advance to push variants of an overall shared policy framework, yet the
biggest new organizational investment went into creating a center-left network with reach
into states and localities, a far-flung coalition that would push DC insiders to include a
particular favored provision in health reform legislation.
24
A Regulated Market Approach to Health Reform
As the next big opening beckoned for comprehensive health reform, debates
among self-styled “politically realistic” experts focused on developing a better version of
the “managed competition” approach promoted by Bill Clinton in 1993-94. Tellingly, the
single-payer approach – where government taxes everyone and pays for everyone’s care,
as happens in Canada and in the extremely popular U.S. Medicare program – remained
marginalized in the 2000s as it had been for many years. Instead of looking to push
private insurers out of the health care marketplace, the most influential experts, all
economists, fine-tuned plans to regulate private insurers, give people and businesses
subsidies to buy private health plans on regulated “exchanges,” and mop up most of the
rest of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid (the federal insurance program for the very
poor). The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a major player in the health policy world,
funded a steady stream of studies from the 1990s into the 2000s, designed to work out
pieces of the overall health reform puzzle and keep the goal of expanding coverage front
and center for politicians, along with the need to control rising costs.23
By the time major Democratic candidates discussed health reform in debates and
primaries during the run-up to the 2008 election, they were all consulting with the same
experts – such as Harvard economist David Cutler and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber –
committed to the same overall approach. Gruber, in fact, had designed a variant for
Republican Mitt Romney during his time as Governor of Massachusetts; and
RomneyCare included a pivotal regulatory provision sponsored by the conservative
Heritage Foundation, the “individual mandate” rule that all every person would need to
25
have or purchase health coverage once it became universally affordable. This rule was
pleasing to insurance companies, even if they hated other regulations to which they might
be subjected. So well-understood was the basic script for what eventually became the
Affordable Care Act of 2010 that it was published in early 2008 in a popularly focused
book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, two of whose co-authors
were prominent Democrats willing to cooperate with business interests: Tom Daschle,
who was slated to become the next Secretary of Health and Human Services and chief
White House health policy czar (until he was sidelined by a controversy about his
subsidized limousine driver from a wealthy donor) and Jeanne Lambrew, who actually
did moved into a key policy leadership role in the Obama White House in 2009.24
Readying the next health care push also involved putting the right technical
expertise in place, above all via the appointment of Peter Orszag to head the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) after Democrats gained partial control in 2006. As
Orszag understood, in the failed Clinton health reform episode CBO scoring practices
had been politically as well as fiscally consequential. CBO had called cost-reducing parts
of the Clinton plan “taxes,” and that had scared off Blue Dog Congressional Democrats,
who always say they want cost controls and federal budget limits, but who fear the word
“taxes” more than any other in the English language. CBO had also been slow to move
during the 1993-94 legislative battles. So during the 2000s, Orszag prepared the way for
the next reform push. Between 2006 and 2009, he had CBO scoring protocols worked
out in detail, so the green-eyeshades guys and gals would be able to work quickly and,
hopefully, label and score health reform provisions in ways more amenable to holding
together Democratic legislative coalitions. After Obama won the presidency, Orszag
26
moved into the White House as head of the Office of Management and Budget, from
whence he could bird-dog health reform negotiations and facilitate cooperation with the
Congressional Budget Office.
Harnessing Market Forces to Mitigate Global Warming
Looking at intellectual preparations to legislate carbon caps, we see a similar
story of adaptation to market forces and established business interests as the
developments just discussed for the health reform arena. Influential environmentalist
supporters of “realistic” climate-change efforts had worked for years to promote market-
accommodating policy frameworks, reaching out to receptive business chieftains in the
process.
The decades of the 1990s and 2000s brought controversy and realignment in the
U.S. environmental movement, whose primal legislative victories had been scored
decades earlier, when landmark laws like the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act
of 1972, and the Endangered Special Act of 1973 were put on the books. Once those laws
and federal regulatory bureaucracies to enforce them were in place, the DC political
opportunity structure shifted – and so did the organization and focus of environmental
activism. Big environmental organizations headquartered in Washington DC and New
York expanded their professional staffs and became very adept at preparing scientific
reports and commentaries to urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) onward.
They also filed lawsuits when necessary, and lobbied Congressional staffers who were
frequently open to improving regulations about clean air and water. Setbacks certainly
27
happened in the 1980s when President Reagan Republican and other GOP conservatives
pushed to stall and roll back environmental regulations. Yet even then the
professionalized environmental organizations proved adept at fighting on defense – by
continuing to lobby in Congress and recruiting hundreds of thousands of additional
adherents using mass mailings that dramatized the conservative threats to environmental
gains.25 As long as they could work with friendly Congressional Democrats and their
staffers and appeal to moderate Republicans in Congress, the professional environmental
organizations did not need to rethink the big picture.
By the 1990s, global warming was recognized among environmentalists as a
threat to the environment very different from traditional kinds of air and water pollution.
The EPA is not optimally organized to cope with such an overarching issue for the
national economy, because its parts are focused on pollution in land, air, and rivers, lakes
and oceans – and the same was true of the original organization of expertise in
professional environmental organizations. To address the new global threat, major
environmental organizations added experts and new divisions, but at first, most
professional environmentalists envisaged responding to climate change by extending or
supplementing regulatory powers at the EPA, the ones they were accustomed to thinking
about. They pushed for new EPA authority to regulate particular types of dangerous
emissions. At the same time, many environmentalists wanted wary legislators to vote for
highly visible new taxes on carbon-energy sources such as gasoline or electricity from
coal-fired plants. The taxes would raise prices on dirty energy and generate revenues for
government to direct toward green technology subsidies and investments.
28
Gradually, however, a new strain of market-friendly environmentalism gained
ground.26 Not long after he took over, at age 30, as head of the faltering Environmental
Defense Fund, Fred Krupp launched a bold strategy to place less emphasis on lawsuits
and regulatory enactments and instead pursue environmental goals through “strange
bedfellows” coalitions between environmental experts and particular business leaders.27
Krupp made a splash – and sparked acrimonious debates among environmentalists, too –
with a November 20, 1986 Wall Street Journal editorial called “New Environmentalism
Factors in Economic Needs.”28 Not only was the venue well chosen to attract
sympathetic attention from Republicans and business leaders; Krupp’s rhetorical strategy
was equally brilliant. He started by pointing out that “new leaders” were being chosen to
lead old-line environmental organizations – sending the not so subtle, time-honored
message that the old guys should give way to fresh blood – and then announced that it
was time for a new “third stage” in environmentalism. This was a clever way to promote
his business-oriented strategy as the inevitable next phase, the coming thing. Pioneering
U.S. environmentalists, Krupp explained, sought to conserve resources and beautiful
enclaves like Yosemite; and the second-phasers took over in the 1960s and 1970s,
looking to punish and regulate polluters. But now it was time for a less “relentlessly
negative” phase that would move beyond “reactive opposition” to industry to work with
business and channel market forces, looking for ways to pursue at the same time
environmental protection and the valid economic goals of furthering “growth, jobs,
taxpayer and stockholder interests.”
Not surprisingly, Krupp’s approach at EDF caught the attention of advisors to
Republican President George Bush, Sr., who would soon be looking for a way to deliver
29
on campaign promises to fight the “acid rain” (caused by sulfur dioxide emissions from
Midwestern power plants) that was harming northeastern lakes and forests. Many in the
broad environmental community looked askance when Krupp later teamed up with
electric company executive Jim Rogers and with the Bush White House to back an
emissions trading system to reduce the pollutants causing acid rain. Before long,
Congress installed this experiment in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, and the
new approach soon proved itself. At a lower than expected cost, acid-rain causing
emissions were ultimately reduced far below initial projections.
The acid rain success launched an enticing policy model. Thereafter, emissions
trading under a cap rapidly gained new acceptance among professional environmentalists
– on its way to becoming “the holy grail of environmental policymaking.”29 The 1990
federal approach to acid rain encouraged the design of similar policy proposals to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy. The first applications were in
regional compacts among state governments in the Northeast and Northwest, followed by
adoption of a kind of carbon capping and trading system by the European Union. As
environmental policy scholar Leigh Raymond explains, in the early efforts,
environmentalists focused mostly on the regulatory caps set by governments, but as time
passed they paid more attention to how allowances to emit greenhouse gasses were
handed out to businesses – or sold at auction.30 Instead of giving allowances away based
on industry emission levels in the past, many environmentalists moved toward supporting
auctions, which would in effect encourage efficient market decisions about investing in
new technologies, and also generate government revenues to invest in green energy or
remit to citizens and regions especially hard-hit by rising energy prices. In any event, the
30
early real-world experiments with cap and trade programs fed back into ongoing
intellectual debates about how best to adapt this approach to the overarching challenge of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the fight against global warming. “Cap and trade”
became the favored approach for moderate environmentalists and the apparent key to
forging alliances with some business leaders to push legislation that could gain
Republican as well as Democratic votes in Congress. Business was presumed to have
great sway with Republicans, so winning over some corporate chieftains and business
sectors was assumed – simply assumed – to be the magic key to wooing Republican votes
in Congress. The ideal combination of wise policy and effective politics seemed at hand!
Indeed, as ideas moved toward actual legislation, the momentum behind market-
accommodating approaches to setting a carbon cap for the U.S. economy was faster from
2000 to 2009 than any movement toward comprehensive health reform. To be sure,
regulated and expanded health insurance was enacted in Governor Romney’s
Massachusetts in 2006, but despite a certain amount of cheerleading, Romney’s policy
model did not inspire actual legislation in any additional states. With the Republican
Party in charge in Washington DC, nothing advanced on the national health reform front.
Democratic politicians, constituencies, and experts could only lay in wait and fine tune
their plans. Meanwhile, key environmentalists kept reaching out to business and
moderate Republicans, and managed to persuade teams of Senators to introduce cap and
trade styled bills and bring them to vote.
With these warm-up steps, cap and trade proponents believed they were inching
toward eventual legislative victory, and certainly looked to be moving closer than health
reform supporters during the 2000s. In October 2003, Democrat Joe Lieberman and
31
Republican John McCain teamed up to maneuver a Senate vote on the “Climate
Stewardship Act,” which garnered 43 votes in favor (from 36 Democrats and six
Republicans) versus 55 votes opposed (including ten from Democrats representing states
dependent on carbon-sourced energy). A modified McCain-Lieberman effort, called the
“Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act” got a less favorable vote in 2005 (losing 60 to
38). Another effort in the same lineage, the “Climate Security Act” of 2008, sponsored by
Lieberman and Republican John Warner went down by the closer margin of 48 to 36. The
2008 vote totals were disappointing, but proponents suggested that at least six Senators
who had to be absent on voting day would have supported the legislation if it had come
close to the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. This was a bit of whistling in the dark,
but cap and trade proponents remained optimistic, because the November 2008 elections
seemed likely to strengthen their hand.
That John McCain was absent as a sponsor during the Lieberman-Warner effort –
and in fact did not even leave the presidential campaign trail to register his vote – did not
much disturb cap and trade proponents. They considered GOP presidential contender still
to be tacitly in their corner; and they were pleased that during the GOP primary campaign
season McCain stuck with his support of cap and trade in principle, even when attacked
by all other GOP contenders (including Mitt Romney, who denounced cap and trade as a
big tax increase on all American families and businesses).31 During the general election
as well, McCain expressed occasional vague support for some kind of cap and trade
legislation. To environmentalists invested in the holy grail of cap and trade, McCain
appeared to be what they wanted to see, the same old GOP maverick determined to play
for the votes of the Republican moderate voters and Independents who, according to
32
polls, wanted the United States.to act on the threat of global warming. “We invested a lot
in John McCain,” one pivotal DC player told me.32
From 2006 on, cap and trade proponents were also creating and working within
the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which was publicly announced in January
2007. USCAP brought together more than two dozen big business CEOs with the leaders
of big environmental organizations – the Environmental Defense Fund, the National
Resources Defense Council, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the World
Resources Institute, and the Nature Conservancy. (Originally, the National Wildlife
Federation was also on board, but it eventually dropped out in early 2009.) USCAP
formed specifically to hash out the details of a legislative blueprint for a nationwide cap
and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The game plan called for CEOs
and Big Enviro honchos to team up, work out a plan, and press their carefully brokered
handiwork on Congress as soon as the hoped for opportunity arose after the looming
2008 elections.
When John McCain lost the presidency to Democrat Barack Obama, leading
environmentalists and business leaders participating in the USCAP still hoped that the old
maverick would team up with a number of other putatively environment-friendly
Republicans to help push bipartisan cap and trade legislation in the Senate. They trusted
that the steps taken to design and lobby for predecessor bills throughout the previous
decade had honed the legislative provisions and tuned up the experts and lobbyists that
would make success possible this time. By January 2009, when USCAP publicly
unveiled its painstakingly negotiated blueprint, cap and trade seemed like a plane
gathering speed down the runway, about to take off.
33
In some ways, the move from planning to DC policymaking went much more
smoothly for carbon cappers than for health reformers, because the latter suffered an
early snafu when Tom Daschle, potential Obama administration cabinet secretary, health
reform czar, and ambassador to Congress, was derailed by a scandal over subsidized
limousine rides he had accepted from a business supporter. Environmentalists of various
stripes, meanwhile, were heartened by many of the initial appointments to the fledgling
Obama administration.33 These ranged from the appointment of former Clinton EPA
administrator Carol Browner to head the White House Office of Energy and Climate
Change Policy, and the designation of distinguished scientist and cap and trade proponent
Steven Chu to head the Department of Energy. Another key appointment was “long-time
proponent of climate-change regulation” John Holdren to head the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.34
Beyond appointments, President Obama’s first budget included promising down
payments for the climate warriors as well as the health reformers. It designated close to a
trillion dollars to pay for health reform, and it posited a new cap and trade system as a
major source of federal revenues over the next decade.35 Investments in green energy
technologies were also included in Obama’s budget as well as in his stimulus legislation.
Budgets matter, because they are where presidents and their advisors either put their
money where their mouths have been, or not. DC players always peruse budgets with the
kind of avid attention that most of the rest of America reserves for sports news, because
the Beltway types know that, absent money, all the rest is empty talk.
34
New Investments in Coalition-Building and Political Capabilities
Reform campaigns place a lot of emphasis on early presidential appointments and
policy signals, and both the health reformers and the climate change warriors got some of
what they hoped for at the start of the Obama presidency. But the real battles for major
legislation are necessarily waged in Congress, with coalitions of interest groups and
public appeals unfolding in intricate interaction with the tortured progress of highly
negotiated bills through committees and floor votes and conference committees. Both
health reformers and cap and trade proponents knew they had to be ready for prolonged
legislative maneuvers and pressure campaigns. But if both sets of reformers understood
the legislative drill, they nevertheless laid organizational groundwork in different ways –
and the new organizational capacities and networks they put in place leading into 2009
would make a difference at key choke points during the 111th Congress.
I say “new” organizational capacities, because of course, prior to any given
legislative campaign, both of these policy spheres were already populated by long-
established organizations – businesses, professional groups, trade associations and
business lobbies, plus policy advocacy and popularly rooted organizations. In the health
care arena, there were physicians’ and nurses associations, associations of hospitals,
insurance companies, and pharmaceutical manufacturers – all of which tend to be called
“stakeholder” associations. And there were more popularly rooted organizations involved
in health reform, too, such as labor unions (especially the Service Employees
International Union) plus consumer groups, nonprofits and charities. In the environmental
arena, the long-established organizations ranged from major, professionally run advocacy
35
organizations (such as the USCAP participants and the Sierra Club), to protest-oriented
operations such as Greenpeace International and the recently growing group called
“350.org.” Many state and local environmental groups are also on the broad
environmental playing field, including “environmental justice” organizations speaking
for minorities and the poor.36 Climate change and other realms of environmental politics
also involve major corporations, especially energy producers and distributors. In the
health reform and cap and trade dramas, all of the established organizational players were
going to push and pull on DC during 2009 and 2010, and some would engage in media
campaigns as well.
But beyond such established players, the Usual Suspects, what new coalitions and
capacities for sustained political action were nurtured and prepositioned for 2009? New
capacities for lobbying and mobilization required leadership and funding – and large
foundations got involved in selecting the leaders and giving them millions of dollars to
prepare for the anticipated politics of legislative sausage-making for health reform and
cap and trade. In climate-change politics, the bets were placed on moderate, highly
professionalized environmental organizations, and especially on the USCAP coalition
that could work out the technical details and broker stakeholder partnerships around a cap
and trade proposal and push Congress to move it forward. In health-reform politics, new
funding and capacity-building went into various umbrellas for consumer advocates and,
most importantly, into a slightly left-of-center effort called “Health Care for America
Now” (HCAN) that would orchestrate organizational networks in dozens of states to
conduct local events and pressure members of Congress from beyond the Beltway.
36
37
38
In charts 2 and 3, I have pulled together a rough organizational inventory to
show where major investments in new capacity-building were made in both reform
arenas. In the health reform arena, interestingly enough, new organization-building
investments seem to have been fairly minimal in the overall scheme of things – and
certainly did not reach the level of funding or the scale of new organized undertakings
that happened in the climate change area. There is a good reason for that. During 2007
and 2008, the campaign organizations of the major Democratic presidential contenders –
John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama – in a sense served as the focal points
for everyone invested in the Next Big Push for comprehensive health reform. Experts,
unions, health-industry stakeholders, citizen groups, pretty much everyone who believed
that a new opening for comprehensive health reform legislation was on the horizon and
wanted to shape the parameters of the possible and desirable, all jumped into the
Democratic campaigns early and tried to grab the ears of the would-be nominees and
their staffs. Health care reform was a long-time Democratic Party priority, so the party’s
internal debates and presidential campaign organizations were where much of the action
was in 2007 and 2008.
Some major foundations, especially the massive Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation (RWJ), invested in expert and stakeholder projects that could feed into, first,
the presidential campaigns, and then the administration of whichever Democrat won the
presidency (if and when one did). RWJ also encouraged consumer networks through an
umbrella organization called Catalyst. Beyond that, a few foundations took a more
political approach, looking for ways to address with new organizational efforts what was
widely seen as a deficit back in 1993-94: the capacity to mobilize support outside of DC
39
in the states and Congressional districts. The California Endowment moved from
funding reform efforts that fell short in its home state toward looking for opportunities to
influence national reform. And Atlantic Philanthropies, though it had no established
history in health policymaking, decided to become a major, early player by seeding
organization for “social justice” through health reform well before the 2008 elections.37
Compared to the big environmental funding that went into USCAP and two major public-
message organizations for cap and trade, the Alliance for Climate Protection and Clean
Energy Works, the Atlantic Philanthropies investment in health reform was fairly paltry
in the sense that it cost many fewer millions of dollars. But Atlantic’s seed support for
HCAN was for an unusual kind of outside DC mobilizing effort that ended up creating
pivotal leverage on the 2009-10 legislative process.
HCAN on the Left Edge of the Possible
In 2007, newly installed leaders at Atlantic Philanthropies were looking for ways
to have a quick impact through actions, rather than via the usual kind of multi-year
planning confabs that happen at foundations with new leaders. After some preliminary
discussions tempted them with the possibility of influencing health reform politics during
a (possibly) incoming Democratic administration, Atlantic’s board gave planning grants
both to FamiliesUSA, a well-established small foundation oriented to speaking for health-
care consumers, and to the organizing committee for a new undertaking called Health
Care for America Now (HCAN). This new entity was a coalition of labor unions,
consumer, and community groups that wanted to pre-position state-level field operations
40
able to involve hundreds of local union and community groups in lobbying for health
reforms that met the coalition’s principles.38 Proposals to Atlantic Philanthropies were
delivered for vetting in the early spring of 2008 – and they took alternative approaches to
mobilizing for health reform.
FamiliesUSA presented a plan to engage supporters and spread information about
the advantages of health reform, generally defined, in fifteen “battleground” states, that
is, states where the partisan balance could be up for grabs. In addition, FamiliesUSA
proposed to assemble broad stakeholder coalitions. The proposal from HCAN was bolder
and more innovative. Rather than just focus on “battleground” or “swing” states, HCAN
outlined a very detailed fifty-state plan for linking together already-existing union and
community and advocacy organizations. HCAN included in its national steering
committee organizations that had reach into dozens of states, and it also inventoried local
organizational partners that could get involved in each state. By networking existing
organizations, it aimed to be able to contact millions of citizens across the country and
cooperate with national efforts by fielding events and lobbying in many legislative
districts – not just “swing” districts, but in the districts of virtually all Democrats in
Congress. HCAN wanted to be able to push and support nominal Congressional
supporters of reform, as well as legislators on the fence.
The two proposals to Atlantic also took different stances on the substantive goals
they would further. FamiliesUSA would not try to have its partners negotiate the content
of reform proposals to support, but HCAN proposed to have groups sign on to a detailed
common agenda. This was thought to be crucial to build trust and bridge tensions on the
center-left, where in the past divisions about policy preferences had undercut
41
cooperation. Common principles would also facilitate accountability, because HCAN’s
national steering committee proposed to work on contracts with lead organizations in
each state and hold them responsible for delivering efforts and events in the reform
battles to come.
Fatefully, Atlantic Philanthropies chose the HCAN plan to receive what
ultimately added up to $27 million in foundation funding, with investments starting early
in 2008 and continuing through 2010. Early money was critical, because it enabled
HCAN to organize across dozens of states and build trust and test messages well before
Obama arrived in the White House. In addition, HCAN got increments of funding from
other sources – $6 million from other foundations, $6 million from individual donors, and
$9 million in dues from organizations in the coalition – to build what became a total two-
year war chest of $47 million.39 The sheer amount of money was significant, but not huge
by the standards of major DC legislative wars. What mattered was where the money
went. In his retrospective book on the HCAN effort he led, Richard Kirsch quotes an
Atlantic Foundation leader as being impressed by the shared specific principles of the
HCAN plan, as well as by the fact that “while not entirely an outsider plan, it was an
advocacy plan based on continued pressure from those left of center, although not so left
as to be out of the discussion.”40
Indeed, the HCAN coalition was committed to the same overall approach to
health reform as all other actors in and around the Democratic Party establishment – the
approach stressing regulation of private insurers combined with big new public subsidies
to extend coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. But HCAN had its
own take on the overall game plan. While some DC health reform proponents were
42
negotiating with business stakeholders, HCAN targeted private insurance companies as
“enemies” of reform, and called for a “public option” insurance plan like Medicare to be
included as a choice for people buying new coverage with health reform subsidies.41
This idea, launched by Jacob Hacker at Yale University with backing from labor-funded
think tanks, was at the leftward edge of the expert consensus feeding Democratic
presidential candidates’ proposals for health reform. (Hacker got a hearing from all the
campaigns, but David Cutler had more of the inside track.) By adopting Hacker’s “public
option” as part of its shared principles for reform, HCAN was able to situate itself in a
strategically pivotal place. HCAN filled the space between inside-DC elite players and
brokers, on the one hand, and leftist health reformers who remained loyal to the idea of
Canadian-style single-payer health insurance, on the other hand. HCAN activists
continued to argue with progressives further to their left, even as they adopted much of
the same progressive language demonizing private health insurance practices – and
endorsed an overall regulatory framework acceptable to more moderate health reform
supporters. It was quite a balancing act. HCAN’s focus on a key left-center reform
provision, the public option, plus its mobilization against insurance company practices,
allowed the coalition to rope in a lot of energy and support on the left for what ultimately
became Affordable Care, but to do so without become captive to an entirely inside-the-
Beltway bargaining process.
In the health legislation dramas that played out – and dragged out – from early
2009 through March 2010, the investments made by citizens organizers and Atlantic
Philanthropies paid off handsomely, though not to achieve exactly what they set out to
achieve. The vaunted “public option” was briefly incorporated in House legislation and
43
pushed by many Democratic Senators, too. But key brokers like Senate Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus never accepted the idea, and the public option did not
make it into the final rounds of legislation hammered out after the Scott Brown victory in
Massachusetts concentrated the minds of most reformers on just getting some version of
Affordable Care through Congress. Tellingly, in the final weeks, HCAN dropped its
insistence on the public option, yet took that difficult step without standing down from
the overall health reform push.42 The coalition used its connections in many districts,
especially those of freshman House Democrats, to keep up the pressure to vote “yes” on
the bills Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi finally presented in the House; similarly, HCAN
affiliates played a role in getting Democratic Senators to turn to majority reconciliation
voting procedures to get final compromises with the House through their chamber.
In sum, center-left-of-the-possible pressures, funded at a cost to foundations and
donors well below the cost of the climate-change “public messaging” efforts I am about
to discuss, ended up playing a crucial role in getting the compromised Affordable Care
legislation to President Obama’s desk in March of 2010. The new health reform law was
far from perfect, in HCAN’s view or the eyes of any major actor in the drama of its
passage. But an enacted comprehensive reform bill is a big deal; once a framework,
however imperfect, is in place, it is hard to undo and can serve as a platform for future
progress. Establishment DC policy players in health reform often did not give HCAN
conscious heed or credit. When Lawrence Jacobs and I interviewed DC players in health
legislation, especially in the Senate, they all pooh-poohed HCAN’s efforts. But they
probably owed their ultimate legislative victory in part to the inside-outside lobbying
HCAN organized, because in the districts of dozens of Democrats across the country,
44
especially House Democrats, local groups in the network were always weighing in – and
were especially well prepared to insist on final enactment of a compromise version of
Affordable Care after the Brown election imperiled it.43 Without pressure from far
beyond the Beltway, Congress would surely have scurried away from the arduous and
controversial end-game at that point.
Climate Reformers Invest in Insider Bargaining and Media Ads
The new organizational investments made to prepare for the 2009 opportunity to
pursue carbon-capping legislation focused much more on insider bargaining and within
the Beltway lobbying than on building capacities in states and localities for a push from
the left edge of the possible. To prepare for carbon-capping legislative efforts, hundreds
of millions of dollars were invested by major foundations and wealthy donors, surely
more in total than was invested in laying groundwork for health reform. Journalists Petra
Bartosiewicz and Marissa Miley tell the story in some detail and offer specific financial
estimates in section three of their “Too Polite Revolution” narrative. Several major
foundations – especially the California-based William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and
the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, plus the Minnesota-based McKnight
Foundation – took the lead during the 2000s in encouraging professional environmental
groups to place a priority on climate change both globally and in the United States. Their
efforts were coordinated to carry through the strategic recommendations in Design to
Win, an August 2007 report commissioned by environmentally oriented foundations to
45
delineate (as the subtitle put it) “philanthropy’s role in the fight against global
warming.”44
As the singular noun “role” suggests, this report embodied a quest for strategic
unity among funders. “As scientific evidence of climate change has become clearer,” the
report’s Executive Summary explained, “philanthropists… are inundated with a dizzying
array of contradictory options and opinions.” To “chart a course through this maze,” the
reports authors consulted scientific experts, corporate consultants (such as McKinsey),
and representatives of major foundations, and in the end came up with a set of priorities
for funding in the next decade. Actions across the globe were included, and the report
called for conservation measures and steps toward new efficiencies in various industrials
sectors. Yet “carbon reductions” in the United States and the European Union, achieved
in significant part through “a cap on carbon output” was clearly laid out as a pressing
priority. Only about $200 million a year was being given by philanthropists to further the
key priorities, the Design to Win report concluded; and it called for an immediate major
increase in funding, by an additional $600 million annually.
“As a direct result” of this influential report, explain journalists Bartosiewicz and
Miley, major foundations “pooled their resources and committed over $1.1 billion over
five years” to be channeled through ClimateWorks, a new foundation focused on
combating climate change.45 The new organization was headed Hal Harvey, who had
previously spearheaded Hewlett Foundation support for a bipartisan expert commission,
the National Commission on Energy Policy, which in 2004 recommended a national cap
and trade system for the U.S. economy. This body was meant to pave the way for federal
policymaking, and eventual key players in the Obama administration, including Science
46
Advisor John Holdren, were involved in the commission. ClimateWorks was the next
logical step. When launched in 2008, ClimateWorks was intended to aggregate the
financial punch behind cap and trade along with other anti-global warming efforts. In the
end, the sum total of philanthropic giving went beyond the ClimateWorks principals
alone, because (in the words of Bartosiewicz and Miley) “two additional California-based
foundations, the Energy Foundation and the Sea Change Foundation, also invested in cap
and trade policy.”46
Big new philanthropic investments in climate-change efforts including cap and
trade did not go to anything analogous to the HCAN undertaking in health reform.
Climate-change giving went into building new expert capacities in major environmental
organizations, a number of which “elevated climate change to the top of their agendas”
from the mid-2000s and redirected “personnel and resources to lobbying on the issue.”47
Some multi-million dollar grants also went into efforts at the League of Conservation
Voters and the National Resources Defense Council to “educate the public” about
climate-change issues, while other hefty grants helped build expertise relevant to
designing the specifics of cap and trade. At the Environmental Defense Fund and the
Natural Resources Defense Council, big foundation grants paved the way toward
engagement in USCAP stakeholder bargaining in 2007 and 2008.
In addition to investments in commissions and the ClimateWorks funding
channel, the United States Climate Action Partnership can in fact be seen as the major
new organizational investment by climate reformers – the contrapuntal counterpart in the
environmental sphere to HCAN in the health care arena. Both HCAN and USCAP
worked out detailed shared policy programs to be pressed upon the White House and
47
Congress at the first opening; and both required major monetary and time commitments
from the organizations that served in their steering arrangements. As we have already
seen, HCAN negotiated detailed policy goals that all participant groups agreed to
support; and HCAN also eschewed the usual leftist practices of requiring very little to
join a coalition by insisting that member unions and community and consumer groups on
the Steering Committee commit two staffers to work on the campaign and give at least
half a million dollars in resources, including $100,000 in cash (although the cash could be
adjusted to get some smaller minority-led groups on board).48 Similarly, the rules of the
game for principals joining USCAP required major corporate and environmental
organizations to pay annual dues of $100,000 and also lend their CEOs to an arduous and
protracted bargaining process.49 That process sought to move the “strange bedfellows” in
this stakeholder coalition from general principles to detailed legislative proposals.
Organizational leaders and their staffs had to settle contentious specifics such as goals
and timetables for greenhouse gas reductions and allocations of pollution allowances to
specific industrial sectors. The back and forth, the blowups, the last-minute concessions
– all the colorful details fill many pages in Eric Pooley’s The Climate War.
Without repeating Pooley’s account of the USCAP negotiations, the reality to
underline is that the effort to hammer out a “strange bedfellows” agreement between
some corporate leaders and some leading environmental honchos was inherently
asymmetrical, binding participants unevenly in a way quite different from the all-around
commitments to shared principles by members of the HCAN coalition. USCAP’s
inherent asymmetry was grounded in the modus operandi of business organizations
versus nonprofit advocacy groups – and the asymmetry is also attributable to the greater
48
investment of environmental groups in pushing cap and trade legislation of some sort
over the top. When one side has fewer options for maneuver, and also needs a bargain to
succeed more than the other, the needy, inflexible side will surely give more, and do so
again and again.
The corporations that participated in USCAP could double their bottom-line bets
– by participating in the strange-bedfellows effort to hammer out draft climate legislation
that was as favorable as possible to their industry or their firms, and at the same time
participating in business associations likely to lobby against much or all of the terms of
that insider bargain once it faced Congress or the general public. As they should do given
their role as heads of profit-maximizing businesses, the corporate CEOs in USCAP –
such as Jim Rogers of Duke Energy – could work in more than one way to protect their
firms’ bottom lines. But heads of the Environmental Defense Fund, the National
Resources Defense Council, and the other the leading environmental organizations in
USCAP had to stick by whatever commitments they made in the internal coalitional
process, or else it would fall apart. How could Fred Krupp of EDF possibly allow a
collapse in these negotiations, given that his entire career was premised on the notion that
“third way” bargains with business are the key to saving the environment? Not
surprisingly, the major environmental groups that stuck with USCAP throughout 2009
and 2010 steadily gave ground on issues like free allowances and offsets to carbon
polluters. They steadily lost leverage, because they could not simultaneously stand up for
negotiated compromises with their business partners in USCAP and have their own
organizations push unremittingly for tougher, more environmentally friendly legislative
provisions. Leaders like EDF’s Krupp and Frances Beinecke from the Natural Resources
49
Defense Council necessarily placed all their chips on cooperation with some industrial
sectors and business chieftains, and had to hope that those business leaders could push
Congress to act by convincing key legislators that not all businesses were opposed to cap
and trade legislation. When encouragement from USCAP businesses proved to be far
from enough in the Senate, the USCAP environmental groups had no other real arrows in
their quivers. And since they were pretty much the entire ball game for carbon capping
legislation, they had no equivalent of the nationally networked HCAN working on the left
flank of the possible to push in their stead during the legislative end-game.
But is this a fair assessment – to say that too many of the chips for carbon capping
were placed on USCAP alone, with all its inherent bargaining asymmetries? After all, as
chart 3 shows, investments in climate-change lobbying and stakeholder bargaining were
complemented by separate – and in dollar terms, very large – investments in public
“messaging” and mobilization. Funded at about $80-$100 million annually, Al Gore’s
organization, the Alliance for Climate Protection, was active starting in 2006, from the
time of his big movie release and subsequent celebrity. The Alliance claimed field
organizers in more than two dozen states, and it enrolled citizen activists and ran
nonpartisan paid media advertising campaigns aiming (in the organization’s words) “to
persuade the American people… of the … urgency of adopting and implementing
effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis.”50 More pertinent to the cap
and trade battle itself, another public messaging effort, dubbed Clean Energy Works, was
launched in the summer of 2009, right after the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill.
Led by a Paul Tewes, a renowned former field organizer for the Obama campaign, the
Clean Energy Works campaign reportedly deployed about 200 field organizers in 28
50
Midwestern, western, and southern states, and spent about $50 million on mass
advertising during the Senate deliberations of 2009-10, pushing the general message that
action to combat climate change would lead to “Better Jobs, Less Pollution, and More
Security.”51 Tens of millions more were spent on cap and trade-related public messaging
by various other donors and green groups.
Overall, the new organizational investments for the cap and trade push could be
described as furthering a clear political division of labor. Supported by experts, the
insider stakeholders in USCAP would bargain out the details of actual legislation, while
the pollsters, ad-writers, and field operatives in the messaging campaigns would try to
persuade enough Americans to be generally supportive to open space for legislators in
Congress to act. The messaging campaigns would not make it their business to actually
shape legislation – or even talk about details with ordinary citizens or grass roots groups.
Ordinary American citizens and street-level activists were not presumed to have an
interest in or a need to know about the “how” of anti-warming legislation; they were just
supposed to be persuaded to endorse the general principle of a legislative solution to a
pressing problem.52
This division of labor in the cap and trade effort – insiders work out legislation,
pollsters and ad-writers try to encourage generalized public support – reflects the way
most advocates and legislators in the DC world proceed nowadays. “The public” is seen
as a kind of background chorus that, hopefully, will sing on key. Insiders bring in
million-dollar pollsters and focus-group operators to tell them what “the public” thinks
and to try to divine which words and phrases they should use in television ads, radio
messages, and internet ads to move the percentages in answers to very general questions
51
in national polls. It all has a very distanced, antiseptic quality to it, as powerful and very
economically secure people look down on the American multitudes with a kind of
bemused amazement and try to find poll results about public attitudes to wave in front of
policymakers. A typical scene at a posh environmental retreat in the summer of 2008 is
recounted by Pooley. Advocates supporting cap and trade were trying to draw lessons
from the ignominious showing of Lieberman-Warner in the Senate, getting ready for the
next rounds. Drawing on public opinion studies that no doubt cost millions, the EDF
Director of Communications reported that “people care more about jobs, gas prices, and
their families than they do about the climate.” 53 Well, yes. This was an expensive
rendering of the obvious about the worries of most Americans in an era of stagnant wages
and rising economic insecurities.54 Participants in the retreat do not seem to have
concluded that their efforts and policy choices should henceforth directly address the top
concerns of ordinary Americans. Rather, from reports like this came nonpartisan
messaging strategies that, in general and gauzy terms, mentioned unspecified “green
jobs” and “American energy independence” as the reasons for ordinary citizens to
acquiesce to sweeping climate change legislation, whose specifics those citizens were
supposedly not to worry about too much.
Both Gore’s Alliance and Tewes’s Clean Energy Works claimed to have airlifted
state organizers into dozens of swing states to work on media-events at crucial legislative
junctures. But most of their tens of millions of dollars in messaging resources went into
mass persuasion advertisements, especially on television. And how effective were the
ads? They rarely identified heroes or enemies in specific ways – beyond tentatively
criticizing generalized “polluters” – and they maintained a lofty nonpartisan stance well
52
above the level of any policy specifics, offering very general calls for Americans to act
together to address sketchily defined problems caused by climate change. Presumably,
the climate-change ads were meant to get citizens to register more “concern” about global
warming, which in turn would supposedly make it easier for legislators to support cap
and trade. But from the ads – and from most of the media events that paid organizers
airlifted into swing states to put together – citizens could not learn how, specifically,
pending legislation would help their families deal with pressing concerns in a deepening
national economic downturn. Admittedly, ad writers in the global warming arena may
have an inherently harder time spelling out personal consequences than advertisers telling
stories about patients who suffer when they don’t have health insurance coverage or
when insurance companies refuse to cover an illness. But it is not clear that the climate
change ad writers even tried to spell out concrete benefits that new legislation could bring
to ordinary families – because, in fact, the cap and trade bills debated in Congress were
all about inter-organizational deals among corporations, unions, advocates, and industrial
sectors, not about specific benefits that would be directly delivered to individual citizens.
The best ad writers would be able to do would be to personally dramatize threats from
climate change, and they rarely even did that.
Not surprisingly, the opponents of carbon-capping had much more concrete things
to say to voters. In their opulently funded advertising and astroturf organizing campaigns,
the opponents demonized pending legislation as “cap and tax” and proclaimed that, if the
nefarious measures DC insiders were cooking up actually passed Congress, each family
would have to spend up to $3,100 more per year for gas and electricity.55 Opponents of
carbon capping also painted lurid details about how regulations would hurt business
53
profits and discourage “job creators.” The opponents did a better job of scaring citizens
than the proponents did of arousing enthusiasm for whatever it was they were trying to
get through Congress. As cap and trade supporters in the Senate were making last-gasp
efforts to rejigger proposals and assemble votes, the American public registered waning
support for action and lack of comprehension of what was at issue. The scare-ads of
opponents surely had an effect, and the incomprehension was nothing new. Back in May
2009, just before the House acted on Waxman-Markey, only 24% of respondents to a
national poll told Rasmussen that they understood what “cap and trade” meant.56
During the winter and spring of 2010, the very different end-games for
comprehensive health reform and economy-wide carbon-capping legislation came into
sharp relief – and revealed that political groundwork and organizational investments
made long before were delivering different pay-offs. We do not have to pretend that the
final enactment of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010 was inevitable to realize that,
when push came to shove after Scott Brown was elected as a potential GOP blocking
Senator in January, it meant a great deal to have a nation-spanning, outside-in
mobilization effort to push Democrats in Congress to finish the job. At that time, HCAN
and other popularly rooted allies favorable to comprehensive health reform kept the
pressure on Congress and the White House; and almost all center-left groups with
capacities for popular mobilization and messaging turned away from maximalist demands
and instead just pushed DC insiders to get a law passed. But during the same months,
efforts in the climate-change arena simply lost steam.
When the April 20 explosion of the British Petroleum oil rig in the Gulf of
Mexico made it harder to work out cap and trade legislative bargains that included some
54
pay-offs for oil-state Senators, there was no HCAN equivalent to keep pushing – either
for a variant of cap and trade or for some alternative legislation addressing carbon
emissions. Inside the Senate, there were a couple of alternative bills put forward,
including a proposal to regulate electric utilities and a bill to tax carbon energy and give
the money back to individual citizens in the form of annual “dividends” that would help
families defray rising energy costs. But both of these alternatives were tardy efforts with
no real DC coalitions or national mobilizations behind them. On the environmental
terrain, there was no outside-in lobbying network of vast scope with reach into most
states pushing for much of anything. The proponents of carbon caps were unable to force
a final Senate vote on any legislative approach at all – and the Democratic-led House was
left hanging with the controversial measure it pushed over the top in the spring of 2009.
For carbon-capping efforts during the early Obama presidency, the end came in a
prolonged series of whimpers and cop-outs, as it became clear not only that no
Republican Senators would support action, but that many Democrats, including
Democratic Leader Harry Reid, also saw no point in carrying the issue further.
Failures of this sort almost always set the stage for further deterioration. After cap
and trade faded in the Senate, legislators facing primary or general election battles
stopped talking about climate issues and environmental measures altogether – except for
conservative Republicans prepared to dispense ridicule, denial, and calls for rollbacks to
EPA regulations on the campaign trail. This was the reality leading into the November
2010 elections, which brought massive losses for Congressional Democrats. And the
same situation persisted during 2011 and through the 2012 elections. Democrats,
including President Obama as he sought reelection, tip-toed around climate issues. With a
55
few exceptions from coastal-state delegations, Democratic officeholders and candidates
were at best willing to talk about new investments in clean energy. Almost all
Republicans, meanwhile, engaged in ever-more hyperbolic denunciations of the EPA and
promised to remove all obstacles to coal-mining and new drilling by oil companies. A
keystone of their “energy policy” is a loud commitment to speed approvals for the new
Keystone Pipeline, which would further lock the North American continental economy
into exploitation of carbon-intensive energy extracted from Canadian oil-sands. Most
Republicans these days also promise to eliminate subsidies and tax credits that have
helped make wind and solar power commercially competitive in the United States, while
preserving special subsidies and breaks for big oil companies.57
OUTFLANKED BY EXTREMISTS
In retrospect, the political terrain on which carbon-capping reformers were
maneuvering in 2009 and 2010 was fatefully treacherous well before USCAP issued its
legislative blueprint at the start of the Obama presidency. As we have seen, participants
in the USCAP effort, along with their supporters in the broad environmental community,
sincerely believed the DC stars were aligned for legislation to proceed; and they also
trusted that the general American public would accept the need for action to combat
climate change. Many of them understood that successful legislation would be watered
down and compromised in the Congressional sausage-making process; but they had faith
they could make a start at regulating the price of carbon in the U.S. economy, which
56
would in turn enable the United States to join as a credible partner in world-wide
agreements. However, if we step back and look at long- and medium-term developments
in party orientations and public views prior to the 2008 elections, we can see that gaping
crevasses had opened in the slippery slopes the carbon-cappers were trying to climb. As I
am about to spell out, the funders, experts, professional environmentalists, and
cooperative business leaders who labored during the 2000s to prepare the way for a
legislative push for cap and trade when a friendly president and Congress took office
were not noticing the overall shifts in American politics that would make their insider-
bargaining effort virtually impossible to pull off.
For two decades after 1990, the two major U.S. political parties pulled far apart
on environmental issues, and particularly on global warming. Democrats became
increasingly committed to taking action about carbon emissions they understood to be
spurring global warming, while conservative elites and GOP legislators turned to denial
and opposition. Matters arrived at a politically pivotal juncture in 2006 and early 2007,
with a definitive U.N. report and Al Gore’s influential documentary “An Inconvenient
Truth.” Public opinion shifted toward viewing global warming as a serious threat that
government should address. In response, opponents of carbon-capping took active steps
to heighten popular skepticism and change political calculations. Their efforts started to
pay off in 2007, months before the economy plunged into recession in 2008 and well in
advance of Obama’s move into1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Thereafter, Tea Party
mobilizations finished the job, putting GOP politicians on notice that compromise on
environmental issues is unacceptable to ultra-conservative funders and vigilant primary
voters. Popular as well as elite pressures from the right flanks of the Republican Party
57
persist to this day, and raise serious concerns for policy campaigns that presume the
possibility of using insider bargaining to forge bipartisan compromises.
The Roots of GOP Opposition
To see how we got here, let’s start by dissecting long-term trends in Congress and
public opinion. Modern environmentalism took shape in the 1960s and 1970s, when
Americans gained new awareness of pollution as a threat to such life-sustaining basics as
air and water.58 Some twenty million Americans took part in pro-environmental events
for Earth Day in 1970, and sustained citizen concern allowed the launch of the protective
efforts chartered by the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. After the Environmental Protection Agency was set up
in 1970, advocacy organizations built up professional staffs of lawyers, lobbyists, and
scientific experts to spur and shape federal policy. During the Reagan years in the 1980s,
business interests pushed back and tried to weaken or reverse federal environmental
rules, but general public sympathy with environmentalism remained strong and a number
of major advocacy organizations attracted new contributors and mailing-list adherents as
they successfully defended the EPA and the basic edifice of federal environmental laws.
58
Starting in 1973 and continuing regularly through 2006, the Gallup survey
organization asked national samples of adults whether U.S. spending to “protect the
environment” was “too much,” “too little,” or “about right.”59 Unfortunately, other
survey questions about environmental views have not been asked repeatedly over a
comparably long stretch. Yet the long-running Gallup question is not bad for getting at
partisan breakdowns, because Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, are
known to take different positions on the general desirability of public spending. Figure 1
shows the year by year Gallup results, revealing that over several decades Americans
were quite amenable to spending for environmental protection, with majorities or near-
majorities of both self-identified Republicans and self-identified Democrats opining that
Figure 1. Congressional Pro-Environment Scores and Citizen Support for Increased Environmental Spending
Democrats and Republicans, 1970s to 2000s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Con
gres
sion
al L
eagu
e of
Con
serv
atio
n Vo
ters
Sco
res/
Perc
ent T
oo L
ittle
Spe
ndin
g on
Pro
tect
ing
Envi
ronm
ent
Dem Congress LCV average
GOP Congress LCV average
Dem views
GOP views
59
“too little” was being spent. This was true even in the 1980s when the Reagan-led
Republican Party was trying to roll back many environmental regulations. During the
GOP presidency of George Bush, Sr. from 1988 to 1992, citizens of both party
persuasions showed very strong support for spending on environmental protection.
Thereafter popular opinion began to diverge more sharply along partisan lines, as
Republican identifiers, especially, became much less likely to say too little was being
spent on environmental protection. Partisan opinion gaps of ten to fifteen percentage
points persisted from the mid-1990s through the end of the Gallup series in 2006. But
even in this era of clear partisan differentiation in citizen support for environmental
spending, two realities are worth emphasis. Partisan differences in public opinion
remained very small compared to steadily growing partisan splits in Congressional voting
about environmental policies; and public views evolved in closer relationship to the pro-
environmental positions taken by Democrats in Congress than to the increasingly all-out
oppositional voting of Congressional Republicans.60
In this report, the principal measure I use to track elite partisan positions comes
from scores assigned by the League of Conservation Voters to elected legislators in the
House and Senate. Legislators stand at the intersection of public opinion and interest-
group pressures; they need support from ordinary voters, but they also solicit donations
and receive a steady flow of policy messages from wealthy supporters, economic interest
groups, and ideologically inspired advocacy groups. We can presume that legislators are
quite sensitive to what partisan elites around them are demanding, yet they do have to
win votes, too. Taking both voter preferences and demands from advocates and funders
into account, legislators vote on a steady flow of bills and amendments that push policy
60
in one direction or another. It is valuable to have a consistent way to track these votes,
and that is what the League of Conservation voters provides in the environmental policy
arena. Each year since its founding in 1970, the League has assembled leading
environmentalists to designate important bills and amendments and decide what counts as
a “pro-environmental” vote on each. The positions taken by each Senator and member of
the House of Representatives are tallied and an average score assigned to that legislator.
From the legislators’ scores, it is possible to derive average LCV voting scores for state
delegations, entire regions, and party delegations in each chamber. For many years the
League issued “National Environmental Scorecard” reports that included summary scores
for Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate respectively – although,
interestingly enough, it abruptly stopped publishing summary party scores after 2004,
with no explanation offered. Nevertheless, the subsequent raw scores can still be
averaged in the traditional way to create a consistent series for each party in the House
and Senate from 1970 through 2011; and it is also possible to average the House and
Senate party scores to come up with an overall party Congressional average for each
year, as I have done. In some charts, I use the positive LCV score (where 100 designates
the maximum possible pattern of voting in accord with League priorities and zero
designates total opposition), while in others I present anti-environmental voting scores
(derived by subtracting LCV scores from 100).
A mere glance at trends in the LCV scores displayed in Figure 1 makes it clear
that Congressional partisan polarization on environmental priorities is deep and
longstanding. Splits between Democratic and GOP legislators started much sooner and
were always greater than partisan differences in public opinion, no doubt because
61
politicians in the two parties were responding to different interests and ideas among
funders and interest group leaders. Business interests had more sway with Republicans,
while environmental reformers had easier access to Democrats. Nevertheless,
Congressional partisan divisions were not extreme during the 1970s and 1980s, and the
partisan gap did not grow significantly during that early era. The 24-point difference
between the party averages in 1970 was not all that different from the 29-point difference
in 1990, despite big shifts in public issue agendas and presidential priorities. During
modern U.S. environmentalism’s earliest decades, Americans regardless of party tended
to support spending on environmental protection, and business interests adjusted to new
environmental guidelines as time went by. Broadly in tune with public sentiments,
Democrats in Congress tended to support LCV priorities half to two-thirds of the time,
while Congressional GOPers – who were more cross-pressured by business interests
reluctant to accept environmental regulations – nevertheless supported the same LCV
priorities thirty to forty percent of the time.
But after 1990 the modest partisan gap in Congress quickly splayed into a
veritable chasm. By the year 2000, the Congressional partisan divide had more than
doubled, from 29 points on the LCV scale in 1990 to an extraordinary 63.5 points a
decade later. The divide widened even further over the next ten years, reaching an
amazing 73.5 points by 2010. Pictures cannot tell us everything (which is why
polarization researchers favor complicated regression equations), but Figure 1 makes it
obvious that voter sentiment did not drive Congressional partisan splits. Between the
early 1990s and the early 2000s, public opinion did not polarize anywhere near as much
as Congressional voting did. Responses to the long-running Gallup question about “too
62
little” environmental spending showed a larger partisan split in this period than they had
earlier, but ordinary citizens hugged two sides of the middle ground and did not part
company with one another on partisan lines to the same extreme as their elected
representatives. What is more, from 2002 to 2006, both Democrats and Republicans in
the Gallup samples became more supportive of environmental spending; and the public
overall was closer to Congressional Democrats than to the Congressional GOP.
At the elite level, the extreme polarization in Congress was certainly a two-sided
sorting out. After the mid-1990s, Democrats who stayed in Congress or were newly
elected became as pro-environmental in their voting patterns as GOP legislators became
the opposite. But the Democrats drifted left gradually as an unruly herd, in which not
everyone was always in lockstep. The Democratic House and Senate caucuses (and at
times party leaderships) included legislators from the environmentally liberal coastal
states, side by side with legislators from mid-continental states where oil, gas, and coal
companies are economically powerful and households and businesses use electricity
generated in coal-fired plants. Moderate Democrats from such regions break away from
liberal Democrats on environmental votes that hurt key industries in their states – or they
drive very hard bargains, as the House Democrats involved in the horse-trading over
Waxman-Markey did in 2009.
Even so, since 1990, Democrats have moved on environmental issues largely in
tandem with their voters, with elected Democrats responding to environmental advocates
as they have given greater priority to systemic climate-change issues. From the 1990s, the
League of Conservative Voters scorecards increasingly included votes on climate change
rules and related issues such as motor-vehicle efficiency standards and limits on harmful
63
emissions from the production and use of carbon fuels. Environmental advocates
remained concerned about classic issues of clean air and water and protection of habitats
and species, but they also responded to United Nations reports and scientific findings that
were sounding increasingly shrill alarms about systemic environmental degradation,
about global warming spurred by energy production and use in modern and developing
economies. As environmentalists’ priorities evolved, many Democratic voters did too,
and most Democrats in Congress followed.
On the Republican side it was a different story. In 1990, a Republican President,
George Bush Sr., hammered out the bipartisan amendments to the Clean Air Act that
established a cap and trade-like system to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions known to
cause acid rain. Yet soon after those amendments passed by overwhelming margins,
Congressional Republicans, including many newly elected in the mid-1990s, lurched
away from supporting environmental priorities. The year 1990 was to be the last in
which the composite GOP LCV score fell above 30 percent; soon it would be mostly
below 20 percent, with rising numbers of Congressional Republicans supporting LCV
priorities only ten percent of the time or less. The rightward gallop of Congressional
Republicans after 1990 is in some ways puzzling. While Democratic legislators moved
largely in tandem with their voters, Republicans shifted right far ahead of rank-and-file
party constituents. What is more, the GOP lurch happened as concerns about global
warming grew internationally and in the U.S environmental community. President
George Bush Sr. looked for more market-friendly methods to regulate emissions
dangerous to the environment, but Republicans in Congress soon moved toward denying
such problems as well as opposing possible solutions.
64
Climate Change Denial
Scholars who have looked at this GOP shift point to campaigns and lobbying by
carbon-intensive industries and ultra-free-market ideological groups. Republicans had
long been responsive to business lobbies, and U.S. business groups became more
coordinated and effective at blocking regulations and pressing for reduced taxes during
the 1980s and 1990s.61 Anti-tax groups such as Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax
Reform and the plutocrat-funded Club for Growth mobilized to press Republican
officeholders and candidates against raising taxes, ever, for any reason.62 Instead of
worrying about balancing budgets, GOP officials began to push tax cuts and reductions in
domestic spending as the solution to all governing problems; and in the political arena the
pragmatic conservatism of Ronald Reagan gave way to the bomb-throwing variety of
Newt Gingrich. From the mid-1990s on, Republicans in Congress came to see bargaining
and compromise with Democrats as morally reprehensible – or, at least, as tickets to
worrisome primary challenges from the right.
Meanwhile, in the environmental arena specifically, conservative think tanks, well
funded by carbon-industries, wealthy individuals, and ideologically conservative
foundations, ramped up efforts to counter climate science findings and ridicule reformers
who called for U.S. cooperation with international efforts to limit global warming.63
Anti-environmentalists learned lessons from what they saw as their own limited
successes during the 1980s, when the leading environmental organizations had been able
to mobilize public sympathy and question undue industry influence in the Reagan
65
administration. To fight new regulations about warming, conservatives felt they needed
“insulation” from overly visible ties to carbon industry groups. They also needed to
“manufacture uncertainty” about the problem itself, not just oppose regulatory
solutions.64
International linkages also mattered. As social scientists Peter Jacques, Riley
Dunlap, and Mark Freeman spell out, a pivotal event in the climate arena was the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio, which happened just as the Soviet Union broke up and thereby
removed a longstanding international bogeyman conservatives had wielded against
liberals. With the “Red Menace” disappearing, conservatives “began to see global
environmentalism as a threat to U.S. national sovereignty and economic power…,” a new
international threat to which liberals were catering. Conservatives were determined to
push back hard, not only by funding and lobbying Republicans in Congress, inspiring
them to block environmental priorities and prevent the United States from ratifying
international agreements, but also by fostering what these scholars call “environmental
skepticism.”65 Environmentalism, explain Jacques, Dunlap, and Freeman, is “unique
among social movements in its heavy reliance on scientific evidence to support its
claims,” so the most effective counter-tactic had to include questioning scientists and
their findings.66
But how were conservatives to accomplish this, given that university-based
scholars were moving toward empirically grounded consensus about the threat of human-
induced global warming? To get around academia, U.S. anti-environmentalists updated
methods that had worked before in the fight against liberal welfare policies and in the
fight to stave off regulation of tobacco as a carcinogen. They used non-profit, right-wing
66
think tanks to sponsor and promote a cascade of books questioning the validity of climate
science; and they pounced on occasional dissenters in the academic world, promoting
them as beleaguered experts. A “counter-intelligentsia would be deployed to label
mainstream academia as “leftist” and put forth a steady stream of books, reports, and
policy briefs, not only to inform policymakers and their staffers directly, but also to
induce media outlets to question the motives of reformer and present the science of
climate change as, at best, controversial.
According to sociologist Robert Brulle, many think tanks involved in sponsoring
research and publications raising questions about the threat of global warming are long-
standing general-purpose conservative organizations that received new funds to support
projects challenging environmental science and regulatory proposals.67 In Brulle’s view,
ideological funders and think thanks may have played an even stronger role than business
interests in promoting climate-change denial, although it is often hard to tell who is
funding what, because anonymous channels for directing money into politics have
become more readily available in recent years. Brulle estimates that the total amount of
money spent to raise questions about climate change and policies to deal with it has been
considerably less over recent decades than the amounts spent in support of environmental
efforts. “It’s the nature of the spending that makes the difference,” he explains. The
environmental movement “actually tries to spend its money on developing solutions to
climate change…. [T]hey spend hardly anything on political or cultural processes.” In
contrast, the “climate change countermovement spends all of its money there.”68 That
makes sense, according to Brulle, because the oppositional forces are trying to block
67
policy changes, seeking to maintain the economic and political status quo that favors
fossil fuel production, importation, and consumption.
To test the hypothesis that think tanks have been central to this broad political and
cultural denial campaign – and to document that organized denial efforts ramped up
sharply around 1990, just as global warming rose on the environmental agenda – Jacques,
Dunlap, and Freeman compiled a list of 141 anti-environmental books published in
English between 1972 and 2005, and then traced the affiliations and organizational ties of
their authors and sponsors, almost all of whom were U.S. based. The overwhelming
preponderance, 130 of the 141 books, were either directly sponsored by conservative
think tanks, or had authors tied to one or more think tanks. Eight are major organizations
– such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for the Study of Economics
and the Environment, and the Weidenbaum Center -- that have led the charge against
climate science and do extensive lobbying against environmentalist-supported policies.
Figure 2. Organized Climate Science Skepticism and the Growing Congressional Divide
1 Leigh Raymond, “The Emerging Revolution in Emissions Trading Policy,” in Greenhouse Governance:
Addressing Climate Change in America, edited by Barry G. Rabe (Washington D.D.: Brookings
Institution, 2010). 2 A Call For Action: Consensus Principles and Recommendations from the U.S. Climate Action
Partnership: A Business and NGO Partnership (Washington DC: USCAP, 2009). 3 Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine did co-sponsor with Democrat Maria Cantwell the CLEAR
Act discussed at the end of this report. It was a cap and dividend proposal, different from cap and trade,
and did not come to a vote in the Senate. 4 For a quantitative picture of the rightward lunge of House Republicans from 2010 to 2011, see Figure 5.1
in Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 169. 5 Dina Cappiello (Associated Press), “GOP Presidential Hopefuls Shift on Global Warming,” Bangor Daily
News, Saturday/Sunday, May 28-29, 2011, p. A6. 6 Nicholas Confessore, “Ryan Has Kept Close Ties to Donors on the Right,” New York Times, Tuesday,
August 14, 2012, p. A9. 7 Felicia Sonmez, “Who is `Americans for Prosperity’?,” Washington Post, August 26, 2010; and Jane
Mayer, “Covert Operations: The Billionaire Brothers Who are Waging a War against Obama,” The New
Yorker, August 30, 2010. 8 Leslie Kaufman, “Environmentalists Get Down to Earth,” New York Times, December 17, 2011. 9 Petra Bartosiewicz and Marissa Miley, The Too Polite Revolution: Why the Recent Campaign to Pass
Comprehensive Climate Legislation in the United States Failed (January 2013). Their report was also
132
commissioned by the Rockefeller Family Fund in conjunction with the Columbia School of Journalism. It
is available at the School’s website and also in the Spotlight on “The Politics of America’s Fight Against
Global Warming” on the website of the Scholars Strategy Network. 10 Theda Skocpol and Lawrence R. Jacobs, editors, Reaching for a New Deal: Ambitious Governance,
Economic Meltdown, and Polarized Politics in Obama’s First Two Years (new York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 2011). 11 Eric Pooley, The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth (New
York: Hyperion, 2010). 12 For overviews of this episode, see Lawrence R. Jacobs and Theda Skocpol, “Hard-Fought Legacy:
Obama, Congressional Democrats, and the Struggle for Comprehensive Health Reform,” pp. 53-104 in
Reaching for a New Deal, and Jacobs and Skocpol, Health Reform and American Politics: What Everyone
Needs to Know (New York: Oxford University Press, updated edition, 2013). 13 Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), and a new Afterward in the updated 2013 edition. 14 At times, critics of President Obama forget elementary Constitutional principles, as when EDF’s Eric
Pooley declared in a recent opinion piece that in 2010 “the president chose not to move comprehensive
climate legislation through a recalcitrant Senate in the wake of the Great Recession.” See “Obama Will
Start 2nd Term With Unfinished Climate Business,” Bloomberg News, November 12, 2012. Pooley
obviously knows that if the votes are not there in Congress, the president cannot “move” legislation, but his
over-zealous phrasing is telling about the degree to which cap and trade supporters want to pin blame on
Obama. 15 Layzer, “Cold Front,” in Reaching for a New Deal, pp. 327-28. 16 A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise (Washington DC: Office of Management and
Budget, 2009). 17 Layzer, “Cold Front,” in Reaching for a New Deal, p. 327. For an account of a key meeting on March
26, 2009, during which White House officials outlined their rhetorical approach stressing jobs, see Suzanne
Goldberg, “Revealed: The Day Obama Chose a Strategy of Silence on Climate Change,” The Guardian,
November 1, 2012. This article, it is worth noting, claims “revelations” that really have been well
understood for a long time. As suggested by the slogan I cite, Obama and USCAP proponents chose to
speak positively about the new jobs climate legislation could encourage. That slogan was formalized by the
Clean Energy Works campaign, which was launched in mid-2009 to build public support for cap and trade
legislation in the U.S. Senate. 18 Peter Wallsten, “Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters,” Wall Street Journal, January
26, 2010. 19 A recollection from Steve Cochran of the Environmental Defense Fund, as reported in Bartosiewicz and
Miley, Too Polite Revolution. 20 As quoted in Climate War, p. 396.
133
21 See “How the Scott Brown Upset Strengthened Health Reform,” chapter 5 in Jacobs and Skocpol, Health
Reform and America n Politics. 22 On that episode, see Theda Skocpol, Boomerang: Health Care Reform and the Turn Against Government
(New York: Norton, 1997). 23 Telephone interview with Andrew Hyman, Senior Program Officer at the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, August 14, 2012. 24 Tom Daschle, with Scott S. Greenberger and Jeanne M. Lambrew, Critical: What We Can Do About the
Health-Care Crisis (New York: St. Martin’s, 2008). 25 The basic story is told and well-documented in Christopher J. Bosso, Environment, Inc.: From
Grassroots to Beltway (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2005). See also the account in Judith
A. Layzer, Open for Business: Conservatives’ Opposition to Environmental Regulation (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2012). 26 Raymond, “Emerging Revolution,” in Greenhouse Governance, edited by Barry G. Rabe. 27 Pooley, Climate War, chapter 7. For a colorful portrait of Krupp at the height of his public sway, see
James Verini, “The Devil’s Advocate,” The New Republic, September 24, 2007. 28 Frederic D. Krupp, “New Environmentalism Factors in Economic Needs,” Wall Street Journal,
Thursday, November 20, 1986. 29 Leigh Raymond, “The Emerging Revolution in Emissions Trading Policy,” in Greenhouse Governance:
Addressing Climate Change in America, edited by Barry G. Rabe (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution,
2010), p. 105. 30 Leigh Raymond, “The Emerging Revolution in Emissions Trading Policy,” in Greenhouse Governance:
Addressing Climate Change in America, edited by Barry G. Rabe (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution,
2010), pp.105-13. 31 Pooley, Climate War, pp.125-27. 32 Of course, the “investment” this environmentalist was speaking about was not an investment of money or
campaign contributions. It was an investment of faith, trust, and time spent courting McCain’s support in
Congress. 33 Layzer, “Cold Front,” in Reaching for a New Deal, edited by Skocpol and Jacobs, pp. 327-28; and
Pooley, Climate War, 34 Layzer, “Cold Front,” p.328. 35 Ibid. 36 Robert D. Bullard and Beverly H. Wright, “The Quest for Environmental Equity: Mobilizing the African-
American Community for Social Change,” in American Environmentalism, edited by Riley E. Dunlap and
Angela G. Mertig (New York: Taylor & Francis, 1992); and Emily Enderle, editor, Diversity and the
Future of the U.S. Environmental Movement (New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental
Studies, 2007). 37 Richard Kirsch, Fighting for Our Health (Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press, 2011), pp. 56-57.
134
38 My account is based on Kirsch, Fighting for Our Health, especially chapter 3; and on an excellent
assessment of the campaign, Grassroots Solutions and M&R Strategic Services, HCAN Evaluation:
Executive Summary (prepared for Atlantic Philanthropies, 2010). See also Gara LaMarche’s retrospective,
“The Key Role of Advocacy Funding in the U.S. Health Reform Debate” (Atlantic Philanthropies, March
11, 2010). 39 The funding totals come from Grassroots Solutions and M&R Strategic Services, “HCAN Evaluation:
Executive Summary,” p. 10. 40 Ibid, p.60. 41 An early statement was Jacob S. Hacker, “Medicare Plus: Increasing Health Care Coverage by
Expanding Medicare,” pp. 75-100 in Covering America: Real Remedies for the Uninsured, edited by Elliot
K. Wicks (Washington DC: Economic and Social Research Institute, 2001). For discussion of the backing
Hacker’s ideas got from labor and progressive organizations, see Kirsch, Fighting, pp. 34-39. 42 Kirsch, Fighting for Our Health, chapters 20-22. 43 I say not much “conscious heed,” because when Larry Jacobs and I did interviews with key players in
the Senate in January 2010, they showed little awareness of what HCAN was doing and a lot of contempt
for all progressives pushing the public option. In the House, however, many Representatives and their
staffers were probably more aware of HCAN activities. 44 California Environmental Associates, Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global
Warming (San Francisco, CA: California Environmental Associates, 2007). 45 Bartosiewicz and Miley, Too Polite Revolution, pp.17-18. 46 Ibid, p.18. 47 Layzer, “Cold Front,” in Reaching for a New Deal, p. 325. 48 Kirsch, Fighting for Our Health, pp. 54-55. 49 Bartosiewicz and Miley, Too Polite Revolution, p. 11. 50 Quote from the Mission Statement. For origins and activities, see Pooley, Climate War, chapter 3 and
throughout; and Kate Sheppard, “Gore’s Green Groups Kick into Campaign Mode to Push Climate
Legislation,” Grist, May 28, 2009. 51 Lisa Lerer, “New Climate Coalition Launches,” Politico, September 8, 2009; Anne C. Mulkern, “New
Ad Campaign Promotes Climate Legislation,” New York Times, September 10, 2009; and Eric Weltman,
“A Wasted Crisis,” In These Times, December 1, 2010. 52 An observer in a key state who read an earlier draft of this report commented at this point as follows:
“Speaking anecdotally, I can say that many environmentalists, if they were aware of the legislation at all,
tended to regard it as so far short of what is needed that they were not moved to rally in support of it. An
HCAN effort to bring activists along in support of the best politically possible legislation might have made
a difference.” 53 Pooley, Climate War, p. 242.
135
54 For an overview of the hammering the incomes and security of most Americans have taken in a U.S.
economy which, since the 1970s, has allocated the fruits of income growth almost entirely to the very top
income-earners and wealth-holders, see Timothy Noah, The Great Divergence: America’s Growing
Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2012). 55 Pooley, Climate War, p. 407. 56 Rasmussen Reports, “Congress Pushes Cap and Trade, But Just 24% Know What It Is,” May 11, 2009. 57 Eban Goodstein, “Why are Mitt Romney and the Republicans Trying to Kill America’s Wind and Solar
Power Industries?,” Basic Facts brief, Scholars Strategy Network, August 2012. 58 This overview draws on Riley E. Dunlap and Angela E. Mertig, “The Evolution of the U.S.
Environmental Movement from 1970 to 1990: An Overview,” pp. 1-10 in American Environmentalism,
edited by Dunlap and Mertig (New York: Taylor & Francis, 1992); Christopher J. Bosso, Environment Inc.:
From Grassroots to Beltway (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2005); and Ronald G. Shaiko,
Voices and Echoes for the Environment (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999). 59 Data for this question can be found at the Gallup website. 60 An excellent overview appears in Aaron M. McRight and Riley E. Dunlap, “The Politicization of
Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001-2010,” The
Sociological Quarterly 52 (2011): 155-94. But these and other scholars of polarization do not underline
that GOP legislators were originally the outliers, because members of the general public, even GOP
identifiers, for many years espoused views closer to those of Democratic legislators. 61 On changes in business group lobbying capacities and goals, see Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson,
Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – and Turned Its Back on the Middle
Class (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), especially part II. 62 Binyamin Appelbaum, “How Party of Budget Restraint Shifted to `No New Taxes,’ Ever,” New York
Times, December 22, 2012; and Sheldon D. Pollack, Refinancing America: The Republican Antitax
Agenda (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003). 63 See the excellent discussion and documentation in Peter J. Jacques, Riley E. Dunlap, and Mark Freeman,
“The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Skepticism,” Environmental
Politics 17(3) (2008): 349-85. 64 The role of dissident scientists in various instances of “manufacturing doubt” is recounted in Naomi
Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on
Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2010). 65 Ibid, pp. 349, 351. 66 Ibid, p.353. 67 See the interview “Robert Brulle: Inside the Climate Change ‘Countermovement’,” conducted on
September 30, 2012, for the PBS Frontline documentary “Climate of Doubt.” 68 Ibid, pp.2-3. 69 Ibid, p.361.
136
70 Lydia Saad, “Did Hollywood’s Glare Heat Up Public Concern About Global Warming?,” Gallup News
Service, March 21, 2007. 71 James A. Stimson, Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings (Boulder, CO: Westview
Press, 2nd edition, 1999); and James A. Stimson, Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American
Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 72 Robert J. Brulle, Jason Carmichael, and J. Craig Jenkins, “Shifting Public Opinion on Climate Change:
An Empirical Assessment of Factors Influencing Concern over Climate Change in the U.S., 2002-2010,”
Climatic Change, published online February 3, 2012. 73 See, for example, James Druckman, Erik Peterson, and Rune Slothuus, “How Elite Partisan Polarization
Affects Public Opinion Formation” (Working Paper, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern
University, April 1, 2012.) 74 Frederick W. Mayer, “Stories of Climate Change,” Discussion Paper D-72, Joan Shorenstein Center on
the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University, February 2012. Mayer has shared with me the
raw data tabulations used in his figures, which enables me to present trends in my own figures in this
report. 75 Ibid, p. 6. 76 Denialist stories could be considered favorable to the climate change argument, but they still convey to
viewers the notion of conflict and controversy. The trends I present would not change if they were
excluded, because Mayer shows that stories stressing the idea of a conspiracy to deny the threat of global
warming were a staple only on MSNBC in its war with Fox. 77 As well as with Tea Party supporters after that label became virtually coterminous with “conservative
Republican” starting in 2009. See Ari Rabin-Havt, “The Fox Effect: Environment and Tea Party Edition,”
MediaMatters for America, September 27, 2011. 78 “News Audiences Increasingly Politicized,” Pew Center for the People and the Press, March 7, 2009. 79 ABC report from Bill Blakemore on Feb 2, quoted in Mayer, “Stories,” p. 16. 80 Mayer, “Stories,” p. 18. 81 The structure and dynamics of U.S. media today are discussed in Skocpol and Williamson, The Tea
Party, chapter 4. 82 Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella, Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative
Media Establishment (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). 83 See the Idaho activist profiled in David Barstow, “Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on the Right,”
New York Times, February 16, 2010. 84 The dynamics are analyzed in Peter Dreier and Christopher R. Martin, “How ACORN Was Framed:
Political Controversy and Media Agenda Setting,” Perspectives on Politics 8 (3) (2010): 761-92. 85 Pooley, Climate War, pp. 125-27. 86 Theda Skocpol, Obama and America’s Political Future (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2012), pp. 3-4.
137
87 Michael Grunwald, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2012). 88 My account in this section draws on the research reported in Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson,
The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (New York: Oxford University Press,
updated 2013 edition with a new Afterword). 89 A map of local Tea Parties appears in Skocpol and Williamson, Tea Party, Figure 3.1, p.91. 90 The interaction of top-down and bottom-up forces in the Tea Party is analyzed in Skocpol and
Williamson, Tea Party, chapter 4. As of 2013, these forces are still at work, even if the “Tea Party” label
has lost its appeal in public opinion and the media. 91 See Eric Pooley’s account of the Town hall protests, including experiences of Virginia Democratic
Representative Tom Perriello in Climate War, chapter 46. Pooley titles his chapter “Revenge of the Tea-
Baggers,” using a derisive label for these conservative activists. I call them “Tea Partiers” or Tea Party
supporters, in line with the labels they use for themselves. 92 As recounted in Kirsch, Fighting for Our Health, chapter 11. 93 Skocpol and Williamson, Tea Party, chapter 5. 94 Pooley, Climate War, pp. 415-16, offers an entertaining account of Krupp’s visit to McCain in July 2010
in a last-ditch effort to get the Senator to support Senate legislation. As Krupp told Pooley, McCain said he
might change his mind, but only if Obama personally reached out to him – and Pooley, like Krupp, seems
to buy this thoroughly implausible story. 95 Ronald Brownstein, “GOP Gives Climate Science a Cold Shoulder,” National Journal, October 9, 2010
(updated February 16, 2011). 96 See the measurements for the 111th and 112th House contingents displayed in Skocpol and Williamson,
Tea Party, Figure 5.1, p.169. These measurements come from Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica
and studies on his website, Ideological Cartography. 97 Om Hamburger, Kathleen Hennessey, and Neela Banerjee, “Koch Brothers Now at the Heart of GOP
Power,” Los Angeles Times, February 6, 2011. 98 See, for example, the accounts in Michael McAuliff and Lucia Graves, “War On the EPA: Republican
Bills Would Erase Decades of Protection,” HuffPost Politics, October 9, 2011; Jonathan Alien and Erica
Martinson, “EPA Wears the Bull’s Eye,” Politico, June 20, 2012; and Ben Geman, “House Republicans
Scrub Climate Change Concerns from EPA Bill,” The Hill, September 13, 2012. 99 Geman, “House Republicans.” 100 Brad Johnson, “Supported by Tea Party Polluters, Upton Flips on Threat of Global Warming,”
ThinkProgress blog, December 28, 2010. 101 Coral Davenport, “Heads in the Sand,” National Journal, December 2, 2011. 102 Ari Natter, “Republicans Drop Energy Efficiency From Platform,” Bloomberg, September 13, 2012; and
Mark Drajam, “Global Warming Links Democrats, Independents, Isolating Romney,” Bloomberg, October
138
1, 2012. See also Carl Pope’s opinion piece, “The Republican Rejection of a Green Future,” Bloomberg,
November 1, 2012. 103 Cappiello, “GOP Hopefuls Shift on Global Warming”; and Philip Rucker and Juliet Eilperin, “Mitt
Romney Says Plan Will Achieve North American Energy Independence by 2020,”
Washingtonpost.com/politics, August 23, 2012. 104 Nicholas Confessore, “Ryan Has Kept Close Ties to Wealthy Donors on the Right,” New York Times,
August 13, 2012. 105 Amy Harder, “Environmentalists on the Election: Greens Don’t Have the Blues,” National Journal,
November 7, 2012. 106 John M. Broder, “Both Romney and Obama Avoid Talk of Climate Change,” New York Times, October
25, 2012. 107 Findings on media coverage from Media Matters are summarized in Elizabeth Kolbert, “Hotter than
Paul Ryan,” The New Yorker, September 28, 2012. 108 Adam Bonica and Howard Rosenthal, “Forecasting Ideology in the 113th Congress (2013-14),”
Ideological Cartography website, December 2012. 109 Alex Isenstadt, “Logic of House GOP Intransigence,” Politico, December 28, 2012. 110 Nate Silver, “In House of Representatives, an Arithmetic Problem,” FiveThirtyEight blog, New York
Times, December 21, 2012. 111 Chris Cillizza, “Is the Tea Party Dead? Or Just Resting?.” Washington Post, December 4, 2012, updated. 112 Brownstein, “Cold Shoulder.” 113 David Schnare, “Tea Party Environmentalism,” MasterResource: A Free-Market Energy Blog, April
15, 2010. Schnare was in part quoting from a statement of the North Idaho Tea Party’s Environmental
Committee. 114 Dan Lashof, “Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda: Lessons from Senate Climate Fail,” Switchboard: Natural
Resources Defense Council Staff Blog, July 28, 2010. 115 In our research for the Tea Party book, Vanessa Williamson and I sat through a lecture outlining the
alleged U.N. Agenda 21 conspiracy at a January 2011 meeting of the Peninsula Patriots in Gloucester,
Virginia. The same professional advocacy speaker made her way to many other Virginia Tea Party
meetings over coming months. For other examples, see Leslie Kaufman and Kate Zernike, “Activists Fight
Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot,” New York Times, February 3, 2012; and J. Galloway, “Georgia’s Own
52-Minute Video on the `Agenda 21’ Conspiracy,” Political Insider blog, November 12, 2012. 116 John M. Broder, “Climate Change Doubt is Tea Party Article of Faith,” New York Times, October 20,
2010. Amazingly, the 2012 Republican Party Platform officially endorsed such paranoid fears about
environmentalism as an international conspiracy. See Leslie Kaufman, “Republican Platform Opposes
Agenda 21,” Green blog, New York Times, August 29, 2012. 117 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years:
Trends in American Values, 1987-2012, June 4, 2012.
139
118 Eric Weltman, “A Wasted Crisis: How the Environmental Movement Missed the Moment on Climate
Change,” In These Times, December 1, 2010. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid. “Building a movement that can play hardball” is a quote from Brent Blackwelder, former president
of the Friends of Earth. 121 David Leonhardt, “A Climate Proposal Beyond Cap and Trade,” New York Times, October 12, 2010. 122 See Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through: Why We Can’t Leave Saving the Planet
to Environmentalism (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007). 123 Leonhardt, “Climate Proposal.” 124 The full report is available at the website ClimateShiftProject.org. 125 See “ClimateShift data reanalysis makes clear opponents of climate bill far outspent environmentalists,”
at http://climateprogress.org/2011,04/19/climate-shift-data-reanalysis/ 126 Nisbet, ClimateShift, p. 83. 127 Sarah Hansen, Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funders
(Washington DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2012). 128See “The Political Benefits of Taking a Pro-Climate Stand in 2012” (Yale Project on Climate Change
Communication, March 2012); Ben Geman, “Poll Shows Majority Support for Carbon Controls, But
Partisan Split Persists,” The Hill, April 9, 2012; and Frank Newport, “Americans Endorse Various Energy,
Environment Proposals,” Gallup, April 9, 2012 (reporting March 2012 poll). 129 For several examples, see: “Time to Confront Climate Change,” New York Times editorial, Friday,
December 28, 2012; Eric Pooley, “Obama Will Start 2nd Term With Unfinished Climate Business,”
Bloomberg, November 12, 2012; and Chris Mahoney, “What Obama Can Do on Climate Change: Five Big
Steps the President Can Take – With or Without the Help of Congress,” MotherJones, Monday, November
19, 2012. 130 Fred D. Krupp, “New Environmentalism Factors In Economic Needs,” Wall Street Journal, Thursday,
November 20, 1986; and Fred Krupp, “A New Climate-Change Consensus,” Tuesday, August 7, 2012, p.
A 13. 131 Pooley, Climate War, p.319. 132 On EDF’s and Krupp’s continued preference for cap and trade, see the correction at the start of Mark
Drajem, “Carbon Fee From Obama Seen Viable With Exxon Backing,” Washington Post, November 16,
2012 (posting at 12:26pm EST). 133 Ibid; and Valerie Volcovici, “Long-Shot Carbon Tax Surfaces in Cliff Debate,” Reuters, November 8,
2012. 134 Ben Geman, “Left-Right Climate Group Quietly Weighing Proposals for Carbon Tax,” The Hill, July
12, 2012. 135 Ben Geman, “GOP Leaders Slam the Door on Carbon Taxes,” The Hill, July 16, 2012.
140
136 Ben Geman, “House GOP Leaders Pledge to Oppose Climate Change ‘Tax’,” The Hill, November 15,
2012; William O’Keefe, “Will the Carbon Tax Make a Comeback?,” Wall Street Journal, Friday,
December 21, 2012; and Ezra Klein, “Is This the Tax to Pass the Grover Norquist Test?,” Bloomberg,
September 13, 2012. 137 Geman, “House GOP Leaders Pledge to Oppose Climate Change `Tax’.” 138 Joann Weiner, “Larry Summers: It’s Time to Tax Carbon and Treats,” Washington Post, updated
November 23, 2012. 139 “Editorial: Save the Planet. Save Social Security. Save Medicaid. Tax Carbon,” St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, December 27, 2012. 140 See the eloquent presentation in Yoram Bauman and Shi-Ling Hsu, “The Most Sensible Tax of All,”
New York Times OpEd, July 5, 2012, p. A 17. Like most proposals for a carbon tax, this one proposes a
“tax swap” to mitigate the effects on low-income families by, perhaps, reducing payroll taxes that hit them
relatively hard, just as higher energy costs would do. But it is worth noting that these tax trade-offs would
be done through insider Congressional negotiations largely invisible to ordinary American citizens, and
experience in recent years suggests that citizens are easily misled by demonizing attacks when something
mysterious is going on in DC that they do not understand. Opaque policymaking tends to stoke public
distrust and open the door to misinformation campaigns. Citizens often do not realize that their taxes have
been cut, when it happens through insider bargains. 141 Brad Plumer, “Could a Carbon Tax Help the U.S. Avert the Fiscal Cliff,” Washington Post Wonkblog,
August 27, 2012. 142 Kevin Begos (for Associated Press), “Natural Gas Use in US Cuts C02 Emissions to a 20-Year Low,”
Bangor Daily News, August 17, 2012, pp. A1, A4. 143 Ibid. 144 See the very helpful overview of expert findings with useful links in Brad Plumer, “Can Natural Gas
Help Tackle Global Warming? A Primer,” Washington Post Wonkblog, August 30, 2012. 145 Ibid, and see also Michael Levi, “Natural Gas and Climate Change: It’s the Policy that Matters,”
Council of Foreign Relation blog on Energy, Security, and Climate, March 19, 2012. 146 A December 2012 advocacy report calls on the EPA to use Clean Air Act powers in this way. See
Daniel A. Lashof, Starla Yeh, David Doniger, Sheryl Carter, and Laurie Johnson, Closing the Power Plant
Carbon Pollution Loophole (New York: Natural Resources Defense Council, 2012). 147 Felicity Barringer, “California Law Tests Company Responses to Carbon Controls,” New York Times,
December 24, 2012. 148 The Environmental Defense Fund has made considerable headway in persuading major corporations to
“go green” in their procurement purchases. Grassroots student activism is discussed in Justin Gillis, “The
Divestment Brigade: To Fight Climate Change, Students Aim at Portfolios,” New York Times, Wednesday,
December 5, 2012, p.B1.
141
149 See the excellent overview in the essays included in Riley E. Dunlap and Angela Mertig, editors,
American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970-1990 (Washington D.C.: Taylor &
Francis, 1992). 150 HCAN used poll data and focus groups, to be sure. But they were used at an early stage to help hammer
out the principles for building organizational networks in HCAN itself, and by the time they were used for
some advertisements at the height of the health reform legislative battles, the messaging efforts were
parallel to and reinforced by ongoing organizational efforts. 151 I analyze this blueprint-driven debacle in Theda Skocpol, Boomerang: Clinton’s Health Reform and the
Turn Against Government (New York: Norton, 1997, updated edition). See also Jacob S. Hacker, The
Road to Nowhere: The Genesis of Clinton’s Plan for Health Security (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1996). 152 Christa Marshall, “Cantwell-Collins Bill Generates Lobbying Frenzy,” New York Times, February 16,
2010. 153 For a key statement, see Peter Barnes, “Cap and Dividend, Not Trade: Making Polluters Pay,” Scientific
American, December 18, 2008. 154 For more on the Alaska fund, see Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard, editors, Alaska’s Permanent
Fund Dividend (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); and Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard,
editors, Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform Around the World
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). A short overview appears in Michael W. Howard, “How Alaska
Citizens Benefit Equally from Shared Wealth,” SSN Key Findings brief, June 2012. Howard also has
another June 2012 SSN Key Findings brief on “Cap Carbon Emissions and Pay Dividends to Citizens – a
Strategy to Unite Americans Against Global Warming.” Both are available at the website of the Scholars
Strategy Network http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org. 155 See the empirical analysis in James K. Boyce and Matthew E. Riddle, “Cap and Dividend: A State-By-
State Analysis” (Amherst, MA: Political Economy Research Institute, revised November 2010). 156 Marshall’s article “Cantwell-Collins Bill” points to several dozen green groups and companies that
lobbied for the proposal, but gives a much-exaggerated impression of the breadth and depth of support in
late 2009 and early 2010. 157 According to the Director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, Lee Wasserman, the Fund spent about $1
million to encourage “about a dozen state groups across the country” to work on the cap and dividend
approach in January 2009. My conclusion is that this was a modest start on what would have to be a
longer-term and broader effort to take advantage of a political opening in Washington DC. Compared to the
USCAP effort, this cap and trade mini-effort got started years later and on a much smaller scale. Also, if it
is true that this 2009 mobilization was a matter of one funding organization working with a modest number
of state-level groups, then organizationally speaking it could not have developed the heft that HCAN
developed in the health reform arena. State and local groups are important, but there need to be national
142
organizations involved too, so that there are clear bridges between national and sub-national advocates. A
foundation cannot be the only national focal point. 158 To be clear: the dividend checks are equal for all individual citizens. They simply matter more toward
the bottom of the income distribution, because the dividend would equal a higher portion of a lower income
than of a higher income. 159 For the unequivocal facts summarized in a readable way, see Timothy Noah, The Great Divergence:
America’s Growing Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2012). 160 For an influential study that empirically pins down the reinforcing feedback effects of Social Security,
see Andrea Louise Campbell, How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American
Welfare State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. A brief overview of the argument appears
in Andrea Louise Campbell, “How Social Security Encourages Older Americans to Be Active Citizens,”
SSN Key Findings brief, January 2012 (available at http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org). 161 In a cap and dividend system, a fraction of the revenues could be dedicated to either deficit reduction or
investments in clean energy. But if that fraction becomes too large, the dividend checks to citizens will